Shortage of Navs
1.3, thank you for that. In a way, me too.
Camel and Grouse,
As I have said elsewhere, if P-8 happens, there will be a considerable lead time and, of course, the extant US training system will be being examined. The RAF will not just be getting a number of airframes, there will be a massive package, including spares, support, etc., as you correctly stated, Grouse. we're not talking this FY.
And do remember, this is not MPA. It is LRMP and some other stuff.
Camel and Grouse,
As I have said elsewhere, if P-8 happens, there will be a considerable lead time and, of course, the extant US training system will be being examined. The RAF will not just be getting a number of airframes, there will be a massive package, including spares, support, etc., as you correctly stated, Grouse. we're not talking this FY.
And do remember, this is not MPA. It is LRMP and some other stuff.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
Glancing at your posts I sense (I might be wrong) that you are not too aware of the differences in training needs of different types on WSOp. Without diverting too much from your original theme can I suggest that you are a little wide of the mark if you think "MPA type" WSOp training can be "quickly" ramped up to what it was 10-20 years ago. It actually takes a hell of a long time and great deal of flying and ground based training to turn a WSOp (R) or WSOp (S) from ab initio to Combat Ready. We are talking years, not months...and still more years until they are "lead" operator status.
Of course the promise of technology can "de-skill" any aircrew role (including navigator/WSO) opening the door to lower ranks in different seats. But you have to be careful here. If technology means a JT can operate acoustics, it also means a Sgt can operate the backseat of a two seat FJ. That's a road we have not gone down (yet!) and I for one would hate to see it happen - aircrew of all categories are selected and trained on many abilities, not all which can be subsumed by technological advance.
My point is simply this...any growing hole in rearcrew numbers, whatever the rank and specialisation, will be a big, and expensive, challenge to overcome. There will be no easy solutions, so mind out when mover and shakers start looking for cheap ones.
Glancing at your posts I sense (I might be wrong) that you are not too aware of the differences in training needs of different types on WSOp. Without diverting too much from your original theme can I suggest that you are a little wide of the mark if you think "MPA type" WSOp training can be "quickly" ramped up to what it was 10-20 years ago. It actually takes a hell of a long time and great deal of flying and ground based training to turn a WSOp (R) or WSOp (S) from ab initio to Combat Ready. We are talking years, not months...and still more years until they are "lead" operator status.
Of course the promise of technology can "de-skill" any aircrew role (including navigator/WSO) opening the door to lower ranks in different seats. But you have to be careful here. If technology means a JT can operate acoustics, it also means a Sgt can operate the backseat of a two seat FJ. That's a road we have not gone down (yet!) and I for one would hate to see it happen - aircrew of all categories are selected and trained on many abilities, not all which can be subsumed by technological advance.
My point is simply this...any growing hole in rearcrew numbers, whatever the rank and specialisation, will be a big, and expensive, challenge to overcome. There will be no easy solutions, so mind out when mover and shakers start looking for cheap ones.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Downsizer, this is not the place to expand on that FS.
CK, TG 9 but only one E3. The point, not all SNCO are equal and of these 3 two would have been at the top of the NCA tree of the 3 probably the only one who would have wanted a commission was the one unsuitable.
The pool of those both suitable and desirous of a commission will not be as large as some may think. Lest you think I have a thing against NCA, in my last ops tour we had a newly commissioned FE who was outstanding and who deservedly reached sqn ldr in just 2 tours with easy potential for wg cdr.
CK, TG 9 but only one E3. The point, not all SNCO are equal and of these 3 two would have been at the top of the NCA tree of the 3 probably the only one who would have wanted a commission was the one unsuitable.
The pool of those both suitable and desirous of a commission will not be as large as some may think. Lest you think I have a thing against NCA, in my last ops tour we had a newly commissioned FE who was outstanding and who deservedly reached sqn ldr in just 2 tours with easy potential for wg cdr.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 11th Jun 2015 at 11:01.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM, you mentioned the numbers of crew needed per P8 (fingers crossed), as you are well aware, you need more than that. Initially 1:1 but soon you need a spare crew, say 6:5, 8:6 etc. Then, as your initially minimally qualified staff, ex-Nimrod, move on to be replaced by P8 qualified staff, you may need 12
with 10 crews on an aircraft sqn.Yes, your time scales are long. A training rate of 2 or 3 crews pet year would not justify an OCU.
Absolutely correct, Pontious. Those are the sort I numbers I would imagine would be required. But also see my next paragraph...
TOFO, if you glance a little harder you will also see that nowhere did I say this could be done overnight. In fact I did state that there will (if it happens) be a long lead in just to acquire the airframes and all the other gubbins. The UK may not have 8 (number plucked from the air) shiny, fully manned ac by the end of the year, but it could establish an IOC in a reasonable timescale to build on over the years. As I mentioned before, you don't build an entire capability overnight.
I am well aware of the differences in training needs, but thank you for your input.
TOFO, if you glance a little harder you will also see that nowhere did I say this could be done overnight. In fact I did state that there will (if it happens) be a long lead in just to acquire the airframes and all the other gubbins. The UK may not have 8 (number plucked from the air) shiny, fully manned ac by the end of the year, but it could establish an IOC in a reasonable timescale to build on over the years. As I mentioned before, you don't build an entire capability overnight.
I am well aware of the differences in training needs, but thank you for your input.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel
God help those currently serving. Anyone able to tell me what that load of random, made-up words actually means?
Thread Starter
Navs? (or WSOs 
) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?
Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig...
So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?
LJ
) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig...
So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?
LJ
The training pipeline is via Military Avaition Ground School, Elementary Nav Training at RAF Cranwell on the Prefect, with a synthetic training module followed by the RN Observer Course on 750NAS at RNAS Cranwell. There would also seem to be a new course starting under MFTS for WSO. So it would seem that the role is far from dead as we thought 3 years ago and the ‘end of direct-entry WSO training’ Dining Out Night at Cranwell 7 years ago.
There are plans for direct-entry training for at least the next 20 years which will be supplemented by Commissioned NCA WSOps. There is even talk about Tempest/FCAS being 2 seat that could see the return of the WSO(FJ) at some point.
[img]http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AN/AN16-8/5-3.jpg[\img]
Three years down the line and I have even kind of warmed to the WSO/WSOp flying badge:
The wheel has turned once again and if you want to get a fascinating book for Christmas then buy ‘Jeff’ Jefford’s excellent “Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF”. It even covers a fascinating insight to the early days of the Pilot and the rivalry with the Observer.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
It even covers a fascinating insight to the early days of the Pilot and the rivalry with the Observer.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, yes, I think that WSO training was turned off too early. I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2. So the use of other WSO/WSOp to do the traditional staff tours that Navs had done previously has probably worsened the situation as some rear-crew are less 'aircraft flyers' and more 'kit operators' in certain key posts that require experience with specific flying, safety and regulation backgrounds that some WSO/WSOps just don't have.
IMHO of course...
LJ
I am not sure which fleet you have been exposed to MAcr, but I hold most of them in higher regard in terms of staff work, work ethic and standards than most of the JOs coming through today. Whilst there are outliers from every bell curve, I just can't agree with your analysis of MAcr.
Having attending Cranwell, both for AATS and IOT, I can attest to IOT not teaching anything new other than sword drill. RAF Officers are not some kind of mythical being that possess magical powers, There are a lot more officers than NCA.
IOT has an average 95% pass rate and AATS a ~66% pass rate..... I know which course challenged me more.
Just my opinion
HG
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAD Boom
Are you having a bit of a class war moment?
I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.
Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.
It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.
If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.
Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.
Are you having a bit of a class war moment?
I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.
Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.
It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.
If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.
Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.
Regarding cost of training, that is kind of smoke and mirrors. IOT teaches the same course as NCA but crammed into 9/6 months vs 12 weeks. NCA attend exactly the same leadership exercises and are taught most of the same lessons in the same building and classrooms. SMEAC is SMEAC!
Costs are largely irrelevant as Phase 2/3 training is where the real costs come in. Cost does not translate to quality of the individual... Perhaps officer's need more training as they are slower on the uptake....
As an aside, there have been several WSO promotion boards where NCA SJARs have been slipped into the OJARs with NCA scoring very highly. Incidentally, I dont know of a single NCA in nearly 20 yrs that has applied for commissioning that has not been successful, albeit not always their first choice.
Can NCA run the military, no. Is this an ability issue or the way the RAF is set up? Does that mean as CAS has never been a Nav that only a pilot is capable of running the RAF? And let's be honest, the military is not exactly the most efficient beast, regardless who is at the top.
I think your ideas are a tad outdated (are you still serving?) and not because I am a "socialist worker" in any way.
HG
Last edited by heights good; 18th Nov 2018 at 19:19.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree 100%!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I know a MACR who was chopped by a commissioned MACR. He got a commission at the second attempt.
Remember the majority of AEOs were ex-AEOp or Signaller. I also met an ALM Sqn Ldr who was outstanding, an ALM wg cdr who was an outstanding pillock, and knew an AEOp NCO that made Air Cdre.
Many WSOp could have been WSO had the requirements been different when they were recruited.
Remember the majority of AEOs were ex-AEOp or Signaller. I also met an ALM Sqn Ldr who was outstanding, an ALM wg cdr who was an outstanding pillock, and knew an AEOp NCO that made Air Cdre.
Many WSOp could have been WSO had the requirements been different when they were recruited.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in the running for a prize when I went through IOT at Sleaford Tech. Right up to the moment I told the Sqn Cdr to his face that anybody too ****e to get through IOT should not be allowed anywhere near NCA training. I've done both...I know which was harder, which had the higher standards and which had the biggest percentage of knobheads. And frankly, it was not even close.
No doubt it has all changed now, so you can safely ignore the ramblings of an old Flight Sergeant/Squadron Leader.
No doubt it has all changed now, so you can safely ignore the ramblings of an old Flight Sergeant/Squadron Leader.
Thread Starter
HG
I agree you can pretty much teach anyone to do anything, but it’s how long it takes to get there that is normally the problem. Only people with a natural talent, an aptitude, will learn the fastest. The rest of us non-mortals have to slog it out to try and get there in the end!
In my considered opinion your comparison of direct entry IOT and AATS is wrong. The NCACITC, and the BRT before that, are the comparators. IOT is 24 weeks with BRT now 10 weeks and NCACITC now 12 weeks (I believe?). So there is only a 2 week difference - apart from the pass rate where NCACITC is much lower (I refer you back to my first point).
However, I believe the difference between a senior OF-2 and an OF-3 compared to an OR-9 and their effectiveness in a Staff Officer role comes down to early academic education. Normally, the OFs come with a degree (Batchelors or Masters) from a good University compared to the OR; although many of the ORs will have likely gone on to achieve vocational degrees in later life. However, the fact that they did not go direct from school to a University probably means that they did not have a natural flair for academic work. There is nothing wrong with that, they probably just learn differently and are more practical than academic (back to my first point again). However, good staff work needs that academic analysis and written communication skill. Having worked in and around NCA for some time, it is my opinion they are not, by and large, the academic types, they are the practitioners that get things done to a high standard. Of course there are exceptions, but my opinion is based on my general experience gained over nearly 3 decades of the cadre. As I said, nothing wrong with that, but the majority I have worked with have performed better in flying, flight safety and ops type roles rather than Gp, Cmd and MOD desk-bound roles. Those NCA that do have that natural ability normally Commission leaving only a very small amount that get to OR-9 that have the ‘Right Stuff’ to be a great staff officer.
Just my opinion, too.
LJ
I agree you can pretty much teach anyone to do anything, but it’s how long it takes to get there that is normally the problem. Only people with a natural talent, an aptitude, will learn the fastest. The rest of us non-mortals have to slog it out to try and get there in the end!
In my considered opinion your comparison of direct entry IOT and AATS is wrong. The NCACITC, and the BRT before that, are the comparators. IOT is 24 weeks with BRT now 10 weeks and NCACITC now 12 weeks (I believe?). So there is only a 2 week difference - apart from the pass rate where NCACITC is much lower (I refer you back to my first point).
However, I believe the difference between a senior OF-2 and an OF-3 compared to an OR-9 and their effectiveness in a Staff Officer role comes down to early academic education. Normally, the OFs come with a degree (Batchelors or Masters) from a good University compared to the OR; although many of the ORs will have likely gone on to achieve vocational degrees in later life. However, the fact that they did not go direct from school to a University probably means that they did not have a natural flair for academic work. There is nothing wrong with that, they probably just learn differently and are more practical than academic (back to my first point again). However, good staff work needs that academic analysis and written communication skill. Having worked in and around NCA for some time, it is my opinion they are not, by and large, the academic types, they are the practitioners that get things done to a high standard. Of course there are exceptions, but my opinion is based on my general experience gained over nearly 3 decades of the cadre. As I said, nothing wrong with that, but the majority I have worked with have performed better in flying, flight safety and ops type roles rather than Gp, Cmd and MOD desk-bound roles. Those NCA that do have that natural ability normally Commission leaving only a very small amount that get to OR-9 that have the ‘Right Stuff’ to be a great staff officer.
Just my opinion, too.
LJ