Weapon System Officer online?
Why does either role, P-8 or Reaper, have to done by an officer (WSO) as opposed to a SNCO (WSOp)? History? Indeed, I thought many 'back seaters' in the Reaper fleet are currently WSOps?
Someone on here suggested any ex-WSOs who are interested should contact their ex-deskie or OASC. Surely if the RAF are serious about this then someone in manning should be going through the records of all WSOs who have left in the last 4-5 years and cold calling them (maybe they are?). No doubt you wouldn't find some of them, and there would be a fair share of polite and impolite rejections. But some 'maybe' and 'yes' responses would make any effort expended worthwhile.
Camelspyyder
Was putting Tornadoes into ISK ever a serious suggestion? Basing a FJ at an airfield with a known Geese problem?
Someone on here suggested any ex-WSOs who are interested should contact their ex-deskie or OASC. Surely if the RAF are serious about this then someone in manning should be going through the records of all WSOs who have left in the last 4-5 years and cold calling them (maybe they are?). No doubt you wouldn't find some of them, and there would be a fair share of polite and impolite rejections. But some 'maybe' and 'yes' responses would make any effort expended worthwhile.
Camelspyyder
Was putting Tornadoes into ISK ever a serious suggestion? Basing a FJ at an airfield with a known Geese problem?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Biggus - the F35 basing study indeed rejected Kinloss due to single engine v's geese concerns, hence F35 to Lossie and Tonka to Kinloss was the plan from 2013 (The MRA4 basing at Kinloss was only guaranteed to 2013 - Burridge's grand plan was to concentrate all the ISTAR at Waddington after that).
P8 manning is 2 WSO & 4 WSOp per crew I believe. Reaper crews have either 1 WSO or WSOP, but WSO's are in the majority.
P8 manning is 2 WSO & 4 WSOp per crew I believe. Reaper crews have either 1 WSO or WSOP, but WSO's are in the majority.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Frozen North
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonkas to ISK ??
To clarify, Tonkas to ISK was only ever one of the options when Dave was coming to Lossie....and simply to make room for what was 4 F35 sqns and an OCU having to relocate the Tonka OCU anyway...but old news anyway since then all the goal posts have moved since those halcyon days.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ministerial statement on the Defence Airfields Review decisions here:
Defence Airfields Review: 17 Nov 2005: House of Commons debates - TheyWorkForYou
Defence Airfields Review: 17 Nov 2005: House of Commons debates - TheyWorkForYou
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does either role, P-8 or Reaper, have to done by an officer (WSO) as opposed to a SNCO (WSOp)? History? Indeed, I thought many 'back seaters' in the Reaper fleet are currently WSOps?
Someone on here suggested any ex-WSOs who are interested should contact their ex-deskie or OASC. Surely if the RAF are serious about this then someone in manning should be going through the records of all WSOs who have left in the last 4-5 years and cold calling them (maybe they are?). No doubt you wouldn't find some of them, and there would be a fair share of polite and impolite rejections. But some 'maybe' and 'yes' responses would make any effort expended worthwhile.
Camelspyyder
Was putting Tornadoes into ISK ever a serious suggestion? Basing a FJ at an airfield with a known Geese problem?
Someone on here suggested any ex-WSOs who are interested should contact their ex-deskie or OASC. Surely if the RAF are serious about this then someone in manning should be going through the records of all WSOs who have left in the last 4-5 years and cold calling them (maybe they are?). No doubt you wouldn't find some of them, and there would be a fair share of polite and impolite rejections. But some 'maybe' and 'yes' responses would make any effort expended worthwhile.
Camelspyyder
Was putting Tornadoes into ISK ever a serious suggestion? Basing a FJ at an airfield with a known Geese problem?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Akula, they seemed to have trusted the majority of my fellow MAcr when we'd stand in for the AEO when he was either 'ill' or found something more important to do (including important tracking missions!)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I thought I had replied already, but if not - there are only 2 WSO jobs on the P8 vice 3 on the Nimrod. There are/were are loads of WSOp slots on both as well as the WSO seats. Reaper, Voyager and other types fly perfectly well with WSO or WSOp in the seat. I don't see Biggus' point to be honest. The only type that is WSO only is GR4.
camel,
My point was/is as follows. You say there are two rearcrew jobs on the P-8 currently being done by officers, presumably by the Americans and RAF seedcorn. Given that the RAF had stopped recruiting WSOs, no longer have an RAF WSO training system, and there will be very limited career opportunities for any future WSOs, possibly impacting on recruitment and retention, why do we have to put officers into those seats just because the Americans do and we used to in the Nimrod? We used to have NCOs in every position in Liberators, Catalinas, Sunderlands and presumably Shackeltons.
Why not use WSOps who have progressed within the P-8 from having been sensor operators, in the same why that they used to progress from 4th, 3rd, 2nd to lead? This gives career progression and diversification for WSOps, and allows for recruitment and training through a WSOp system that actually exists (albeit in greatly reduced form at the moment).
You've also just admitted that Reaper etc work equally well for WSO or WSOp. So, as you say, with the eventual demise of the GR4, we would be recruiting WSOs out of necessity purely for the P-8, with the option, but not necessity, of filling some other roles.
My point was/is as follows. You say there are two rearcrew jobs on the P-8 currently being done by officers, presumably by the Americans and RAF seedcorn. Given that the RAF had stopped recruiting WSOs, no longer have an RAF WSO training system, and there will be very limited career opportunities for any future WSOs, possibly impacting on recruitment and retention, why do we have to put officers into those seats just because the Americans do and we used to in the Nimrod? We used to have NCOs in every position in Liberators, Catalinas, Sunderlands and presumably Shackeltons.
Why not use WSOps who have progressed within the P-8 from having been sensor operators, in the same why that they used to progress from 4th, 3rd, 2nd to lead? This gives career progression and diversification for WSOps, and allows for recruitment and training through a WSOp system that actually exists (albeit in greatly reduced form at the moment).
You've also just admitted that Reaper etc work equally well for WSO or WSOp. So, as you say, with the eventual demise of the GR4, we would be recruiting WSOs out of necessity purely for the P-8, with the option, but not necessity, of filling some other roles.
The only type that is WSO only is GR4.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody has commented on my first point - why does it have to be an officer?
But here's the thing. The RAF has a system that works. Be a part of it.
I spent 27 years in the kipper fleet, watching said fleet wanting to be different (some might say "special") and it didn't end well.
Slightly more joined up approach might be the way forward this time, don't you agree?
TOFO - I think we were very 'special' 
Around the time of the last downbanding, I think there were a few AEOPs in other fleets who were very glad of the 'specialness' of the kipper cadre. I remember the amount of time and energy spent by many (especially the MACr and AEOs) building a case to prove the 'specialness' of the WSOp trade. All ancient history now.
Re the Officer vs SNCO debate, some individuals could fill the roles, some maybe not. I think the more salient point for P8 will be the number of soon to be 'seat-less' ex-GR4 (and other fleet) Nav/WSOs. Why use a SNCO WSOp (who you will need to fill another seat) when you have a spare bod already?
I'm not sure this 'recruiting' drive is as widespread as indicated. Maybe a few specific individuals for specific skills?
Around the time of the last downbanding, I think there were a few AEOPs in other fleets who were very glad of the 'specialness' of the kipper cadre. I remember the amount of time and energy spent by many (especially the MACr and AEOs) building a case to prove the 'specialness' of the WSOp trade. All ancient history now.
Re the Officer vs SNCO debate, some individuals could fill the roles, some maybe not. I think the more salient point for P8 will be the number of soon to be 'seat-less' ex-GR4 (and other fleet) Nav/WSOs. Why use a SNCO WSOp (who you will need to fill another seat) when you have a spare bod already?
I'm not sure this 'recruiting' drive is as widespread as indicated. Maybe a few specific individuals for specific skills?
