Manning Undershoot Imminent?
I think there is another way to look at this: don't invest your training in those who will leave at the 5 year point. If someone has stayed in past there, they become part of a "long tail" that heads to 20+ years. Therefore start the investment (i.e. the serious stuff) at year 6, with an associated ROS/inducement factor.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF techies who received their llicences on Future Tanker were obliged to stay in for five years after they gained them......that five year point is nearly up.....The figures for how many bang out from that initial lot will make interesting reading. ...
Thread Starter
From a flyer on the latest of the Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review:
Standby for some more FTRS posts for aircrew in the New Year then...
LJ
The SDSR 10 established a future RAF front-line smaller, but more capable,
than the RAF of 2010. This means that in the 2020s and beyond there will not be enough experienced officer aircrew available to fill all of the ground jobs that they have historically filled. The Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review (OASR) examined, in consultation with job holders and the non-flying Branch Sponsors, how many and which ground jobs the reduced number of Regular officer aircrew could fill in the future. The Review recommended that the other jobs be transferred to either a non-flying Branch or the Reserves. The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to
Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines. This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future. A further review of which Flying Branch posts, both flying and ground, could be transferred to the Reserves or deleted will be conducted in 2015.
More recent OASR work has identified that the number of pilots and WSO’s being trained is insufficient to provide experienced junior-officer aircrew to fill some of the non front-line flying jobs such as flying instructors and loan-service aircrew. In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break. Moreover there is a risk that the reduced number
of junior officer pilots and WSO’s could restrict the RAF’s ability to expand or to extend its front-line flying capabilities at short notice. Consequently, the need for aircrew to fill non front-line posts is being reviewed to ensure that appropriate priority is focused on filling the front-line flying posts. The Flying Branch is facing significant challenges; Air Sec’s team is focussed on ensuring that the RAF has a capable and resilient Flying Branch fit for the future.
than the RAF of 2010. This means that in the 2020s and beyond there will not be enough experienced officer aircrew available to fill all of the ground jobs that they have historically filled. The Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review (OASR) examined, in consultation with job holders and the non-flying Branch Sponsors, how many and which ground jobs the reduced number of Regular officer aircrew could fill in the future. The Review recommended that the other jobs be transferred to either a non-flying Branch or the Reserves. The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to
Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines. This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future. A further review of which Flying Branch posts, both flying and ground, could be transferred to the Reserves or deleted will be conducted in 2015.
More recent OASR work has identified that the number of pilots and WSO’s being trained is insufficient to provide experienced junior-officer aircrew to fill some of the non front-line flying jobs such as flying instructors and loan-service aircrew. In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break. Moreover there is a risk that the reduced number
of junior officer pilots and WSO’s could restrict the RAF’s ability to expand or to extend its front-line flying capabilities at short notice. Consequently, the need for aircrew to fill non front-line posts is being reviewed to ensure that appropriate priority is focused on filling the front-line flying posts. The Flying Branch is facing significant challenges; Air Sec’s team is focussed on ensuring that the RAF has a capable and resilient Flying Branch fit for the future.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 20th Dec 2014 at 21:19.
The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines.
This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future
iRaven
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh deary me,
How sad. What am I missing? What don't our airships get? Don't they recognise that those in aviation need the non-frontline jobs for a rest, not back to back tours?
Especially when the quality of life, TACOS and family life are being eroded. Don't the MoD and airships recognise that those in aviation have been doing the extra mile (well in excess of any X factor) for over 13 years?
In the full knowledge that because of 'our' own policies good quality and experienced people are leaving, we are just going to open the cheaper recruiting and training pipeline to put (inexperienced/less qualified) bums on seats. Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies.
How sad. What am I missing? What don't our airships get? Don't they recognise that those in aviation need the non-frontline jobs for a rest, not back to back tours?
Especially when the quality of life, TACOS and family life are being eroded. Don't the MoD and airships recognise that those in aviation have been doing the extra mile (well in excess of any X factor) for over 13 years?
In the full knowledge that because of 'our' own policies good quality and experienced people are leaving, we are just going to open the cheaper recruiting and training pipeline to put (inexperienced/less qualified) bums on seats. Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 20th Dec 2014 at 20:11.
In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break.
Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies.
Someone had a post on this thread (I think, but I can't find it), that pay should be increased "to industry rates, with X Factor on top, and OOAs reduced". This line of thinking sounds a bit like the protests about paying feeding charges back in the day - you know, that it was unfair for someone to pay 7 days a week for food when they only had Monday Lunch to Thursday Dinner, and ate at home for the rest of the time. So they introduced PAYD, so that you were only charged for the food you ate. And everyone complained about the awful quality of the Food and the appalling service - but you got exactly what you asked for, forgetting that the 3 days worth of food you weren't eating cross-subsidised the 4 you were eating. If you ask for Industry standard levels of pay, expect to get treated like an Industrial workforce. If the comments on PPRUNE are anything to go by, that means little to no training for free, limited pension or medical provision, an expectation that you'll go where you're told, when you're told; but balanced by relatively high "take home" wages.
Sometimes I think our noses are in danger of our facial spite.....
*Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up.
*Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up.
Forgive me, what's the historical precedent for being unable to win small wars and yet still being able to win 'the big one'?
F3WMB - we have to ignore the elephant, otherwise we'd all be disbanded. And I don't believe in the "a big boy (i.e. the Politicians and CDS/COS') made me do it and ran away" theory - all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.
That's my point though; once the primary mission is ignored, every other idiotic change 'makes sense'.
Taking the long view, the only valid mechanism possessed by anyone in uniform is resignation in the face of idiotic commands. Some people have mouths to feed, what's everybody else's excuse?
And yes, all my reasons for PVRing have come true, nor was I the only one who 'told you so'.
Taking the long view, the only valid mechanism possessed by anyone in uniform is resignation in the face of idiotic commands. Some people have mouths to feed, what's everybody else's excuse?
And yes, all my reasons for PVRing have come true, nor was I the only one who 'told you so'.
all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.
Anyway, define "loss" in context of these Ops. We lost a lot of people but less than the EFs, we stopped the Taliban from trg/executing a major global terrorist nightmare during our 8 years of 'peace keeping', many of the children (including a massive amount of girls) are now being educated, the ANSF are now capable of holding a semblance of order, etc... Alright, the Taliban were not defeated, but neither were we - so at worst it is a 'score draw' in my opinion. If we knew the desired end-states of TELIC and HERRICK at the start then we might be able to claim loss, draw or victory!
The B Word
If we knew the desired end-states of TELIC and HERRICK at the start
Current British Defence Doctrine
http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc/...es/jdp0-01.pdf
or perhaps more accurately, British Defence Policy is now
(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
And I don't believe in the "a big boy (i.e. the Politicians and CDS/COS') made me do it and ran away" theory
Was it CDS who sexed up the dodgy dossier? Was it CAS who was attached to Dubya's ar$e throughout 2001-2003? Was it the chief loggie who refused to allow the armed forces to conduct appropriate pre-deployment training and post-conflict reconstruction?
I think you will find that these particular gems sit squarely in ZANU-Labour's lap.
all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.
I suppose our colonial record in Afghanistan from the 19th century to today is all the fault of the Army and RAF, and nothing at all to do with Whitehall's utter failure to ever fully understand the region. And nothing to do with their constant willingness to send us into a badly-planned, unwinnable sh!tstorm every time!!
Slowly transferring 'appropriate jobs' to non-flying trades is at odds with the desire to 'expand its frontline capabilities at short notice'. Aside from the fact these tours are an excellent way to rest personnel between demanding flying tours they also act as a nice buffer to allow manning to flex the size of the frontline at short notice.
IMHO of course.
If manning are listening then I can tell you that from my perspective (with me rapidly approaching my exit date), the only thing that will keep me in is a FRI. Like it or not, money talks, but I understand there is nothing left in the pot (although the MP's seem to have found some spare dosh to give themselves an inflation busting pay rise so there must be some around).
IMHO of course.
If manning are listening then I can tell you that from my perspective (with me rapidly approaching my exit date), the only thing that will keep me in is a FRI. Like it or not, money talks, but I understand there is nothing left in the pot (although the MP's seem to have found some spare dosh to give themselves an inflation busting pay rise so there must be some around).
Last edited by m0nkfish; 21st Dec 2014 at 12:01.
I'm in Resettlement. I've not attained high rank, but I knew that would be the outcome of becoming SQEP in a number of off-piste areas (Acquisition/T&E) and shunning the ticket-punching route to high office. When I told Manning of my intention to leave I enquired why I'd boarded too low that year and was told I had "no USP". This was news having been told before that I was too specialised....Clearly the military is awash with Acquisition/T&E SQEP, if so, where are they? Those that were successful from my background had all carefully trodden the 'approved path', and had almost identical backgrounds/experience. You can't blame them for playing the game, and they are good blokes.
Now, I fully understand that there is a 'tariff system' in effect, but, and IMHO it's a biggie, given the historically tiny number of promotions currently occurring we are building in a layer of catastrophic 'group think' at SO1/OF5 level. People with essentially similar backgrounds, having punched the same 'high tarrif' posts, will perhaps struggle to think outside their own narrow 'swim lane'. The fanciful notion that 10mths at Shrivenham can paper over a gulf in knowledge is laughable when talking SQEP registered posts - you can't 'buy' or shortcut the E.
The RAF has recently relied heavily on a cadre of SQEP Flt Lts and Sqn Ldrs to provide the E to help Senior decision making - these are the very people now walking out of the door. To paraphrase Boyd, the "Do-ers" are leaving; what are the "Be-ers" going to do for SQEP advice in the future? Answer-we'll just pay extortionate contractor rates to "buy back" lost experience or believe anything that QQ tell us. The military need a blend of 'generalists' and 'specialists' to remain balanced and effective.
Now, I fully understand that there is a 'tariff system' in effect, but, and IMHO it's a biggie, given the historically tiny number of promotions currently occurring we are building in a layer of catastrophic 'group think' at SO1/OF5 level. People with essentially similar backgrounds, having punched the same 'high tarrif' posts, will perhaps struggle to think outside their own narrow 'swim lane'. The fanciful notion that 10mths at Shrivenham can paper over a gulf in knowledge is laughable when talking SQEP registered posts - you can't 'buy' or shortcut the E.
The RAF has recently relied heavily on a cadre of SQEP Flt Lts and Sqn Ldrs to provide the E to help Senior decision making - these are the very people now walking out of the door. To paraphrase Boyd, the "Do-ers" are leaving; what are the "Be-ers" going to do for SQEP advice in the future? Answer-we'll just pay extortionate contractor rates to "buy back" lost experience or believe anything that QQ tell us. The military need a blend of 'generalists' and 'specialists' to remain balanced and effective.
'Back in the Day', I thought that a 'Spec Rec' normally implied that one should be promoted at the next available opportunity....
Clearly not though - it took me 3 consecutive SRs before I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew - once described to me as 'the best rank in the air force'!
The RAF has always seemed to be geared more towards looking after the 'chiefs' rather than the 'indians'.
Clearly not though - it took me 3 consecutive SRs before I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew - once described to me as 'the best rank in the air force'!
The RAF has always seemed to be geared more towards looking after the 'chiefs' rather than the 'indians'.
Very well said BEagle,
Throughout my 30 years I saw many cases of 'The System' pandering to discontented senior officers who threatened to PVR or complained about an unwanted posting. My service ended with my being posted (for what would in effect have been my final posting) from the fleet on which I had spent my entire career. The explanation was that I needed to be moved on to allow others to gain experience in my role. 2 years on and all those who were to gain that experience have left the Service!
By the way, the best rank for the 21st century has to be PA Flt Lt......better paid than Spec Aircrew Sqn Ldr, better pension and no requirement to undertake Service Enquiries or the burgeoning number of OOA SO2 posts needed to fill the staffs of VSOs trying to get 'operational command experience' on their CVs.
Throughout my 30 years I saw many cases of 'The System' pandering to discontented senior officers who threatened to PVR or complained about an unwanted posting. My service ended with my being posted (for what would in effect have been my final posting) from the fleet on which I had spent my entire career. The explanation was that I needed to be moved on to allow others to gain experience in my role. 2 years on and all those who were to gain that experience have left the Service!
By the way, the best rank for the 21st century has to be PA Flt Lt......better paid than Spec Aircrew Sqn Ldr, better pension and no requirement to undertake Service Enquiries or the burgeoning number of OOA SO2 posts needed to fill the staffs of VSOs trying to get 'operational command experience' on their CVs.
When the changes to flying pay were made about 5 years ago, a number of SO1 'any branch' posts suddenly became 'flying related', effectively filtering out a stream of post ACSC ground branch officers from higher air policy roles. Many of the issues dealt with were about sustaining air power along the Defence Lines of Development Rather than specific issues of operating aircraft or employing kinetic effect.
Isn't interesting the change a few years brings...
Isn't interesting the change a few years brings...