Forces braced for more cuts .....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forces braced for more cuts .....
I haven't seen this posted on this site yet - although I may have missed it !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reposted the link.
Forces braced for more cuts in defence cash squeeze
If anybody is remotely surprised by any of this, you gotta wonder what planet they have been living on for the last few years.
Forces braced for more cuts in defence cash squeeze
If anybody is remotely surprised by any of this, you gotta wonder what planet they have been living on for the last few years.
Not surprised at all. The mismanagement of the Defence Estate for one.
First of my allegations would be the Annington Homes debacle where we practically gave away our quarters and then they sold off the profitable ones where we needed them most - the end result is Defence paying for more families and single personnel living rented accommodation at taxpayers' cost plus the rest living in squalid and mouldy accommodation that is so poorly looked after (nothing wrong with the buildings they're just poorly maintained).
Second would be the sale of the MOD's "family jewells" where we sell up and move out into infrastucture that is more expensive than the sale price of what they have moved out of and it would have been cheaper to fix and maintain the old buildings than build new. The St Athan, Arborfield, Cosford, Sultan debacle coupled to the Brize debacle springs to mind - the receipts for the sale have been outstripped by nearly a factor of 100 compared to the builds. These are often VSO's vanity projects or 'legacies' that cost us dearly. The next looming on the horizon will be the sale of Henlow and Halton to save Cranwell - the buildings required for this are likely to cost over 1/2 a BILLION Pounds when the receipts for the sale of the other 2 stations will be less than a 1/10 of a BILLION. The numbers just do not add up and when the NAO look at this afterwards they will say "naughty MOD you did not get value for money" but it will be too late by then and no one will be held to account.
Other things wrong are Pay As You Dine where we pay small amounts for a 'core meal' and get what we pay for - awful food. Then where the profit is made from the a la carte stuff we end up making huge profits that are then shared with Stations as 'gainshare' - that's because we charge £1.05 for a can of Coke and then half of that profit goes back to the Station. We are ripping off our people to raise funds to be squandered by the Station on stuff.
Then there are the costs of staying in the Mess. When I stayed at Cranwell recently it cost me ~£2 a night. No wonder the Mess was falling apart and my bathroom mouldy. If I was charged a fiver or even a tenner I wouldn't grumble, but 2 quid is a joke.
Let's look at flying. The MAA has added huge expense to all areas pf flying aircraft. However, it has been applied disproportionately in my view. Trying to run a fleet of gliders (Vikings) or light aircraft (Tutors) under the same regime as a Typhoon or Chinook is just plain daft. I can fly a perfectly safe glider for £20 an hour and a light aircraft for £100 an hour under a perfectly safe civil airworthiness system - however you can multiply these figures by 10 for the glider and 5 for the light aircraft when operated by the military. Why do we insist on this worthless waste of cash by applying MAA rules to things so simple?
Then there are the regs surrounding things we do. Some military regs are not required by UK Law or to mirror civilian regs - so WTF are we doing them? Because some trumped up Staff Officer thought it would be a good idea, probably. The amount of time I hear 'the Boss will go to jail/court over this' - I usually reply 'on what basis...where is it written down that we can't do this in UK/Intl Law?'. Normally all I get is stunned silence.
Then there are the endless paperwork trails. You can be trusted with a £50M aircraft but not to claim 25p a mile motor mileage allowance without a certificate from the MT manager, your line manager and then an audit of your car insurance by accounts flight.
Why are the Scribblies still wearing uniform when some of our engineers, suppliers, air traffic controllers, pilots, MT personnel, chefs, cooks and bottlewashers are wearing Serco, Sodexho, Babcock, Cobham, VTAerospace or BAE polo shirts. I would have thought that civilianising scribblies and educators would have been the easiest to achieve. Also, the you only have to see them in their number ones to see how often they have deployed to sit in a nice comfy air conditioned portacabin dishing out dollars, laundry chits and pay statements!
Finally, PFIs and procurement. They are wide open to abuse. Either as a 'vanity project' for VSOs or aligning people for a nice cushy job in civvy street. Further political interference on what they want and what will 'be alright' for the military means that we get the equipment we don't really want for too much money. I did hear that we are all to get the L3 version of the SA-80 (L-85) soon - it is being refurbed by I believe Hechler & Kock at £2.7M for 5,000 weapons that will last until 2025. That's £540 each - we could buy new H&K weapons for about £200 more and they would last 20-25 years instead of 7!!
So to quote the next US President (whom I'm not a great fan of) that it's "time to drain the swamp". The answer will probably be to reduce manpower and lose more capability through so called 'holidays'.
So, no, it doesn't surprise me at all.
LJ
First of my allegations would be the Annington Homes debacle where we practically gave away our quarters and then they sold off the profitable ones where we needed them most - the end result is Defence paying for more families and single personnel living rented accommodation at taxpayers' cost plus the rest living in squalid and mouldy accommodation that is so poorly looked after (nothing wrong with the buildings they're just poorly maintained).
Second would be the sale of the MOD's "family jewells" where we sell up and move out into infrastucture that is more expensive than the sale price of what they have moved out of and it would have been cheaper to fix and maintain the old buildings than build new. The St Athan, Arborfield, Cosford, Sultan debacle coupled to the Brize debacle springs to mind - the receipts for the sale have been outstripped by nearly a factor of 100 compared to the builds. These are often VSO's vanity projects or 'legacies' that cost us dearly. The next looming on the horizon will be the sale of Henlow and Halton to save Cranwell - the buildings required for this are likely to cost over 1/2 a BILLION Pounds when the receipts for the sale of the other 2 stations will be less than a 1/10 of a BILLION. The numbers just do not add up and when the NAO look at this afterwards they will say "naughty MOD you did not get value for money" but it will be too late by then and no one will be held to account.
Other things wrong are Pay As You Dine where we pay small amounts for a 'core meal' and get what we pay for - awful food. Then where the profit is made from the a la carte stuff we end up making huge profits that are then shared with Stations as 'gainshare' - that's because we charge £1.05 for a can of Coke and then half of that profit goes back to the Station. We are ripping off our people to raise funds to be squandered by the Station on stuff.
Then there are the costs of staying in the Mess. When I stayed at Cranwell recently it cost me ~£2 a night. No wonder the Mess was falling apart and my bathroom mouldy. If I was charged a fiver or even a tenner I wouldn't grumble, but 2 quid is a joke.
Let's look at flying. The MAA has added huge expense to all areas pf flying aircraft. However, it has been applied disproportionately in my view. Trying to run a fleet of gliders (Vikings) or light aircraft (Tutors) under the same regime as a Typhoon or Chinook is just plain daft. I can fly a perfectly safe glider for £20 an hour and a light aircraft for £100 an hour under a perfectly safe civil airworthiness system - however you can multiply these figures by 10 for the glider and 5 for the light aircraft when operated by the military. Why do we insist on this worthless waste of cash by applying MAA rules to things so simple?
Then there are the regs surrounding things we do. Some military regs are not required by UK Law or to mirror civilian regs - so WTF are we doing them? Because some trumped up Staff Officer thought it would be a good idea, probably. The amount of time I hear 'the Boss will go to jail/court over this' - I usually reply 'on what basis...where is it written down that we can't do this in UK/Intl Law?'. Normally all I get is stunned silence.
Then there are the endless paperwork trails. You can be trusted with a £50M aircraft but not to claim 25p a mile motor mileage allowance without a certificate from the MT manager, your line manager and then an audit of your car insurance by accounts flight.
Why are the Scribblies still wearing uniform when some of our engineers, suppliers, air traffic controllers, pilots, MT personnel, chefs, cooks and bottlewashers are wearing Serco, Sodexho, Babcock, Cobham, VTAerospace or BAE polo shirts. I would have thought that civilianising scribblies and educators would have been the easiest to achieve. Also, the you only have to see them in their number ones to see how often they have deployed to sit in a nice comfy air conditioned portacabin dishing out dollars, laundry chits and pay statements!
Finally, PFIs and procurement. They are wide open to abuse. Either as a 'vanity project' for VSOs or aligning people for a nice cushy job in civvy street. Further political interference on what they want and what will 'be alright' for the military means that we get the equipment we don't really want for too much money. I did hear that we are all to get the L3 version of the SA-80 (L-85) soon - it is being refurbed by I believe Hechler & Kock at £2.7M for 5,000 weapons that will last until 2025. That's £540 each - we could buy new H&K weapons for about £200 more and they would last 20-25 years instead of 7!!
So to quote the next US President (whom I'm not a great fan of) that it's "time to drain the swamp". The answer will probably be to reduce manpower and lose more capability through so called 'holidays'.
So, no, it doesn't surprise me at all.
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH LJ, I was more "zoomed out" than that (not implying there is anything wrong with what you posted at all).
Cliffs:
The defence procurement in question was agreed by a leadership team (Cameron/Osborne) no longer at the helm.
It was part of a Government Spending Plan that has now been very publicly binned.
It was (in the eyes of many authoritative commentators) un-deliverable anyway.
It has been replaced by...who the **** knows?
The UK economy (and its ability to create wealth/spending power) is clouded in uncertainty.
All the US procurement related costs (eg P8) might* have just increased by 10-15%
[*might, because I'm not privvy to contractual small print on currency fluctuations]
Trump is throwing a cloud of uncertainty over a cloud of uncertainty (so a sort of uncertainty squared, if you will).
This is defense procurement people...where the words "on time and on budget" rarely co-exist.
Happy **** ing New Year.
Cliffs:
The defence procurement in question was agreed by a leadership team (Cameron/Osborne) no longer at the helm.
It was part of a Government Spending Plan that has now been very publicly binned.
It was (in the eyes of many authoritative commentators) un-deliverable anyway.
It has been replaced by...who the **** knows?
The UK economy (and its ability to create wealth/spending power) is clouded in uncertainty.
All the US procurement related costs (eg P8) might* have just increased by 10-15%
[*might, because I'm not privvy to contractual small print on currency fluctuations]
Trump is throwing a cloud of uncertainty over a cloud of uncertainty (so a sort of uncertainty squared, if you will).
This is defense procurement people...where the words "on time and on budget" rarely co-exist.
Happy **** ing New Year.
STH
Don't get me started on GEMS - I find that many VSOs don't like them as it's "not invented here". The disdain I saw a SNCO's GEMS rejected to solve the current basket case that is Air Cadet gliding, was just lamentable. We saw this as well when we tried to start fitting stuff to Tornado like we did on the Jag in the mid-nineties when it became a 'mature airframe'.
Until we fix the problem that we have the 5th biggest defence budget but the 9th strongest military (taken from the Military Strength Index - where the factors under consideration for military strength and their total weights are: number of active personnel in the army (5%), tanks (10%), attack helicopters (15%), aircraft (20%), aircraft carriers (25%), and submarines (25%)) then we have a significant problem with our own military. Too many vested interests and too much nepotism.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-...9/#17-poland-4
LJ
Don't get me started on GEMS - I find that many VSOs don't like them as it's "not invented here". The disdain I saw a SNCO's GEMS rejected to solve the current basket case that is Air Cadet gliding, was just lamentable. We saw this as well when we tried to start fitting stuff to Tornado like we did on the Jag in the mid-nineties when it became a 'mature airframe'.
Until we fix the problem that we have the 5th biggest defence budget but the 9th strongest military (taken from the Military Strength Index - where the factors under consideration for military strength and their total weights are: number of active personnel in the army (5%), tanks (10%), attack helicopters (15%), aircraft (20%), aircraft carriers (25%), and submarines (25%)) then we have a significant problem with our own military. Too many vested interests and too much nepotism.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-...9/#17-poland-4
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 28th Dec 2016 at 14:48.
TOFO - I like 'zoomed in' as bigger picture can be talked away with spin and waffle! 
On the procurement side in the past DE&S 'hedge' on the currency markets. I would surprised if it were costed below $1.40 and no more than $1.50. This is because if the contract purchase is completed with a better exchange rate then the Programme Manager gets a nice pat on the back (and a great annual report). So they are often pessimistic with the exchange rate to come in slightly under budget...sadly probably not this time.
LJ
On the procurement side in the past DE&S 'hedge' on the currency markets. I would surprised if it were costed below $1.40 and no more than $1.50. This is because if the contract purchase is completed with a better exchange rate then the Programme Manager gets a nice pat on the back (and a great annual report). So they are often pessimistic with the exchange rate to come in slightly under budget...sadly probably not this time.
LJ
I forgot to add to my list of dissapointments this year and that was NEM. We, the RAF, sold out some of our techies (Armourers were a classic) and rear-crew, and just how the Officer cadre escaped being banded according to branch I'll never know. I suspect that it was run by a branch that new it would be on lower pay band and so managed to sneak it through.
As an officer I am ashamed that we were not looked at when the WO/SNCO/OR cadre were.
Still it will probably need to be looked at again anyway as will the pensions that are all equally unaffordable at current rates. The current drain on trained manpower (the ones that take years to train rather than weeks) needs to be sorted, and that will only happen IMHO when the pay is balanced towards the pull of civvy street.
LJ
As an officer I am ashamed that we were not looked at when the WO/SNCO/OR cadre were.
Still it will probably need to be looked at again anyway as will the pensions that are all equally unaffordable at current rates. The current drain on trained manpower (the ones that take years to train rather than weeks) needs to be sorted, and that will only happen IMHO when the pay is balanced towards the pull of civvy street.
LJ
More cuts?
Maybe it's just the Government's way of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the despicable 1957 Defence White Paper?
On GEMS, I once wrote a paper proposing that the planned VC10 JTIDS should use the aircraft's EGI system rather than the standalone GPS being proposed by the system designers. That would have saved £M, but all I received was a TY&PO letter - then years later the JTIDS and EGI were indeed linked much as I'd suggested...
Maybe it's just the Government's way of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the despicable 1957 Defence White Paper?
On GEMS, I once wrote a paper proposing that the planned VC10 JTIDS should use the aircraft's EGI system rather than the standalone GPS being proposed by the system designers. That would have saved £M, but all I received was a TY&PO letter - then years later the JTIDS and EGI were indeed linked much as I'd suggested...
Well said Leon but:
It was a lesson in history that has obviously continued in the 10 years i have been out and the 30 years i was in. Nothing has changed. No lessons learnt.
The RAF is still top heavy in senior and very senior managers, there are very few leaders and even fewer who are occasionally willing to say NO.
The poor quality in leadership was a prime factor on my decision to exit.
It was a lesson in history that has obviously continued in the 10 years i have been out and the 30 years i was in. Nothing has changed. No lessons learnt.
The RAF is still top heavy in senior and very senior managers, there are very few leaders and even fewer who are occasionally willing to say NO.
The poor quality in leadership was a prime factor on my decision to exit.
F*** me gently, President Putin, I will not, can not, resist.
I think we will be behind the $ and manpower drag curve for the foreseeable.
Two carriers, F-35s in sufficient numbers and escorts seems a million miles away from being achievable.
Trident replacement will be a big slice of a small pie - necessary or not!
The two extra squadrons of Typhoons are a minor miracle and we also have a fair few more Chinooks than we might need!
Two carriers, F-35s in sufficient numbers and escorts seems a million miles away from being achievable.
Trident replacement will be a big slice of a small pie - necessary or not!
The two extra squadrons of Typhoons are a minor miracle and we also have a fair few more Chinooks than we might need!
I pretty much agree with everything LJ said, other than the idea of civilianising / contractorising - we are a fighting force required to operate anywhere at any time, and that requires a fully uniformed force rather than half hearted Defence on the cheap - not a dig at individuals, but the concept. But LJ's points, whilst valid, are to my mind symptoms. I think the problem can be summed up in one question:
We have one of the largest economies in the world and one of the largest Defence budgets in the world: somebody in authority please explain just who is getting all the cash because it sure as hell isn't the front line Services.
We discussed the SDSR in a previous thread, and without checking, I'm pretty sure I suggested it was smoke and mirrors. The equipment budget was secured, but the personnel and operating budgets weren't. Why? Who on earth thinks that a military organization equipped with small numbers of exquisite platforms but lacking the manpower or funding to operate them on a daily basis is nothing but a paper tiger. But until VSOs, Mandarins and Politicians - of all cap badges, Ministries and political persuasions get that into their heads, failure - in the sense of a failed SDSR just 2 years after settlement - is the inevitable outcome.
So just where is all the cash going? We plainly can't afford all the platforms we need across the Services, so it's not going on excessive numbers there. And every unit I have been on for the past 15+ years has been engaged in cost cutting, a process which seems to do nothing other than prevent units from doing what they were actually set up to do. With ever reducing numbers of units, all of which are required to permanently reduce operating costs, someone needs to explain where this cost cutting finally stops. Manning has been decimated, if not literally then figuratively, and in conjunction with pay freezes and restraint it isn't going on wages. Coupled with a new personnel structure that is clearly focused on recruiting personnel on short term contracts rather than long term careers, then military pension liabilities should be stabilising if not reducing in the long term with the move to career average and as APFS 75 recipients numbers gradually decline.
Given that this controlled flight into terrain has been a constant theme under various governments, and using the term in its loosest sense, leadership, I can only assume there is a pan-party / service common theme. My initial inclination is to look at those in charge and conclude that they are at best second rate minds with limited grasp of the requirement for strategic thinking. I acknowledge that running a country or national level organisation isn't simple, but would suggest it is why those organisations are dominated by the supposedly intellectual elite and renumerated accordingly. However, it would explain the absolute shambles in many areas of government and the dubious handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. That would also explain why people seem to think that having a few examples of very high tech kit but insufficient numbers of personnel or the funding to operate them is the way ahead.
Until we get away from thinking based on short term gain at the expense of long term strategy we will never be in a position to develop a sustainable, well trained and motivated military. For now, the uncertainty created by this mismanagement comes at an unwelcome time in an increasingly uncertain world. I can't see Putin worrying unduly going into 2017.
We have one of the largest economies in the world and one of the largest Defence budgets in the world: somebody in authority please explain just who is getting all the cash because it sure as hell isn't the front line Services.
We discussed the SDSR in a previous thread, and without checking, I'm pretty sure I suggested it was smoke and mirrors. The equipment budget was secured, but the personnel and operating budgets weren't. Why? Who on earth thinks that a military organization equipped with small numbers of exquisite platforms but lacking the manpower or funding to operate them on a daily basis is nothing but a paper tiger. But until VSOs, Mandarins and Politicians - of all cap badges, Ministries and political persuasions get that into their heads, failure - in the sense of a failed SDSR just 2 years after settlement - is the inevitable outcome.
So just where is all the cash going? We plainly can't afford all the platforms we need across the Services, so it's not going on excessive numbers there. And every unit I have been on for the past 15+ years has been engaged in cost cutting, a process which seems to do nothing other than prevent units from doing what they were actually set up to do. With ever reducing numbers of units, all of which are required to permanently reduce operating costs, someone needs to explain where this cost cutting finally stops. Manning has been decimated, if not literally then figuratively, and in conjunction with pay freezes and restraint it isn't going on wages. Coupled with a new personnel structure that is clearly focused on recruiting personnel on short term contracts rather than long term careers, then military pension liabilities should be stabilising if not reducing in the long term with the move to career average and as APFS 75 recipients numbers gradually decline.
Given that this controlled flight into terrain has been a constant theme under various governments, and using the term in its loosest sense, leadership, I can only assume there is a pan-party / service common theme. My initial inclination is to look at those in charge and conclude that they are at best second rate minds with limited grasp of the requirement for strategic thinking. I acknowledge that running a country or national level organisation isn't simple, but would suggest it is why those organisations are dominated by the supposedly intellectual elite and renumerated accordingly. However, it would explain the absolute shambles in many areas of government and the dubious handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. That would also explain why people seem to think that having a few examples of very high tech kit but insufficient numbers of personnel or the funding to operate them is the way ahead.
Until we get away from thinking based on short term gain at the expense of long term strategy we will never be in a position to develop a sustainable, well trained and motivated military. For now, the uncertainty created by this mismanagement comes at an unwelcome time in an increasingly uncertain world. I can't see Putin worrying unduly going into 2017.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ, you missed out 2 of the other great money pits: Regional Prime Contracting where a single organisation gets to look after the estate and charge £350 to change a light bulb that the SWO's gang would do for nothing as part of their role. The second is the mandated use of HRG for travel and accommodation bookings. HRG regularly cost Defence much more than is necessary for these services. My last second-class return train fare to London cost £185 through HRG; I could have purchased a first-class return on the day for £45. Then there's air travel, which, by the time you've got 2* approval has trebled in cost. I am fed up of challenging these issues and being told that Defence gets a good deal. Well, somebody in Defence gets a good deal, or perhaps one of their relatives does.
Leon:-
The MAA is part of the problem and not a solution. The same VSOs that you rail against above are the reason that military aircraft fleets became unairworthy and why it is cheaper to scrap them than to return them to airworthiness. Ages ago, like when I was around, we had a silent dedicated army of skilled engineers such as our own tucumseh who ensured that the aircraft that I flew were airworthy when released to service and remained airworthy until finally withdrawn from service. Those dedicated engineers were replaced by unskilled non-engineers who were prepared to suborn the regs and thus make savings at the cost of safety. Those savings have long since expired and now the cost in blood and treasure continues in their place.
The Royal Air Force was designed as a uniformed bureaucracy outside of the station gates. Like the savings made by attacking Air Safety, those of the 1920s have long since turned to waste. Once the three Service ministries had been subsumed into Mountbatten's MOD, that bureaucracy headed by RAF VSOs has done for airworthiness and thus has almost done for the Royal Air Force.
Unless and until the Military Air Regulator and the Air Accident Investigator are made independent of the MOD, and of each other, there will be no change in that trend. The words chickens and roost come to mind...
Let's look at flying. The MAA has added huge expense to all areas pf flying aircraft. However, it has been applied disproportionately in my view. Trying to run a fleet of gliders (Vikings) or light aircraft (Tutors) under the same regime as a Typhoon or Chinook is just plain daft. I can fly a perfectly safe glider for £20 an hour and a light aircraft for £100 an hour under a perfectly safe civil airworthiness system - however you can multiply these figures by 10 for the glider and 5 for the light aircraft when operated by the military. Why do we insist on this worthless waste of cash by applying MAA rules to things so simple?
The Royal Air Force was designed as a uniformed bureaucracy outside of the station gates. Like the savings made by attacking Air Safety, those of the 1920s have long since turned to waste. Once the three Service ministries had been subsumed into Mountbatten's MOD, that bureaucracy headed by RAF VSOs has done for airworthiness and thus has almost done for the Royal Air Force.
Unless and until the Military Air Regulator and the Air Accident Investigator are made independent of the MOD, and of each other, there will be no change in that trend. The words chickens and roost come to mind...
I spent 30+years flying in the RAF. In that time the number of likeable (or even pleasant) VSOs I met was remarkably small. I worked for an unpleasant one for two years. Meeting him socially 3 months later .. 'I know you from somewhere don't I?' Conversely my boss at a civvy airline remembered all about me and my family ten years later. I should have left years before I did.
Last edited by Four Turbo; 29th Dec 2016 at 09:17. Reason: Meaning
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast bureacracy in itself costs money, and it costs even more as every step of the way there are investigations, studies, testing, discussions, consultations that take years and cost, cost , cost
I would be tempted to scrap the MoD top to bottom and see if anything got worse - I doubt it TBH
I would be tempted to scrap the MoD top to bottom and see if anything got worse - I doubt it TBH
All - completely agree with ALL of your POVs. Sometimes I wonder where we go wrong and I think its because we skitter around ideas and never really commit to anything. The latest mantra from the Conceptual Component (which is a rather grand name for a 3-4 person think-tank) is "Thinking to Win" (T2W) - http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...3B147E9F02.pdf
Whilst I believe the intent is right, we just don't have the numbers of people with the spare time to deliver much against this. The bright ideas that we keep coming up with belies the fact that we are only 31,000 strong that's trying to deliver what we used to do with 45,000. If T2W is really going to succeed then we need to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and that means more trust in the basics - why on earth do we need 2-star approval for a £100 EasyJet flight to Inverness for a staff visit to Lossie when to drive for a 1/2 day visit will be a 3-day extravaganza in an MT vehicle? If I didn't have to chase the paperwork to justify this then I might spend the 1-2hrs on prepping for the visit or doing more ASIMS analysis. It also means taking the glaringly obvious solution. The idiotic estimate process taught at the so called "College of Knowledge" at Shriv is another excuse for weak minds with low levels of expertise - someone with experience in that particular field being 'estimated' knows the answer in seconds! Also, as Melchy pointed out we seem to be encouraging shorter careers which means that our Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) turn into SQePs or even SQPs where the experience is non-existent. We saw this with the creation of the Flt Ops branch where ops rooms used to be filled with the 'old and bold' aviators/ATCOs/Engs but now is filled with Flt Ops personnel that are suitably qualified but have very little first-hand experience relevant to the actual operational task. That's not their fault, it's just that a 14 week course is never going to give the E in SQEP. Then these individuals end up working in diverse posts ranging from SFSOs to the Aerodrome Operator with few ever having the experience of being an operator. A similar issue has happened in Chug's area of concern where SQEPs have been thinned out to an alarming level. When you lose the E in SQEP you lose sound balanced judgement and qualifications alone will not give you that.
When we consider SQEP this extract from the Flt Ops webpage really worries me:
Because it echoes this from Chug's post:
Further, the 'Whole Force' appears equally flawed. Until we actually start treating Regular, Reserve, Civil Service (CS) and Contractor in the same manner it will always be a 'Divided Force' - this means allowing our contractors and CS to do the other stuff that we do such as secondary duties, ceremonial events, sports activities, community work, etc... These cost us next to nothing but allow the CS and contractors to feel more included. However, if we pay them JNCO wages then really we should only be giving them responsibilities at that level; otherwise you will be attracting quite a few individuals who perform at the level that you pay them. The old "quality vs quantity" comes into play here and I would rather have a one good individual paid twice as much as having two mediocre individuals.
Now you may be thinking "LJ why don't you just leave?". In answer to that is I believe that is the cowards way out and as many of my friends are now reaching the dizzying heights of 1, 2 and even 3 star then I hope that a discussion over a beer or coffee may bear some fruit in the future. If we all do our bit in a respectful manner with old mates then we may be able to influence a brighter future.
LJ
Whilst I believe the intent is right, we just don't have the numbers of people with the spare time to deliver much against this. The bright ideas that we keep coming up with belies the fact that we are only 31,000 strong that's trying to deliver what we used to do with 45,000. If T2W is really going to succeed then we need to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and that means more trust in the basics - why on earth do we need 2-star approval for a £100 EasyJet flight to Inverness for a staff visit to Lossie when to drive for a 1/2 day visit will be a 3-day extravaganza in an MT vehicle? If I didn't have to chase the paperwork to justify this then I might spend the 1-2hrs on prepping for the visit or doing more ASIMS analysis. It also means taking the glaringly obvious solution. The idiotic estimate process taught at the so called "College of Knowledge" at Shriv is another excuse for weak minds with low levels of expertise - someone with experience in that particular field being 'estimated' knows the answer in seconds! Also, as Melchy pointed out we seem to be encouraging shorter careers which means that our Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) turn into SQePs or even SQPs where the experience is non-existent. We saw this with the creation of the Flt Ops branch where ops rooms used to be filled with the 'old and bold' aviators/ATCOs/Engs but now is filled with Flt Ops personnel that are suitably qualified but have very little first-hand experience relevant to the actual operational task. That's not their fault, it's just that a 14 week course is never going to give the E in SQEP. Then these individuals end up working in diverse posts ranging from SFSOs to the Aerodrome Operator with few ever having the experience of being an operator. A similar issue has happened in Chug's area of concern where SQEPs have been thinned out to an alarming level. When you lose the E in SQEP you lose sound balanced judgement and qualifications alone will not give you that.
When we consider SQEP this extract from the Flt Ops webpage really worries me:
The Flight Operations specialisation is still very much in its infancy. Nevertheless, graduates have already made positive impressions in the ops rooms to which they have been posted. The successful transition to having ops rooms run by professional ops officers has meant that 350 more posts have recently been transferred from the GD (Air) branch to the Flt Ops specialisation.
Ages ago, like when I was around, we had a silent dedicated army of skilled engineers such as our own tucumseh who ensured that the aircraft that I flew were airworthy when released to service and remained airworthy until finally withdrawn from service. Those dedicated engineers were replaced by unskilled non-engineers who were prepared to suborn the regs and thus make savings at the cost of safety.
Further, the 'Whole Force' appears equally flawed. Until we actually start treating Regular, Reserve, Civil Service (CS) and Contractor in the same manner it will always be a 'Divided Force' - this means allowing our contractors and CS to do the other stuff that we do such as secondary duties, ceremonial events, sports activities, community work, etc... These cost us next to nothing but allow the CS and contractors to feel more included. However, if we pay them JNCO wages then really we should only be giving them responsibilities at that level; otherwise you will be attracting quite a few individuals who perform at the level that you pay them. The old "quality vs quantity" comes into play here and I would rather have a one good individual paid twice as much as having two mediocre individuals.
Now you may be thinking "LJ why don't you just leave?". In answer to that is I believe that is the cowards way out and as many of my friends are now reaching the dizzying heights of 1, 2 and even 3 star then I hope that a discussion over a beer or coffee may bear some fruit in the future. If we all do our bit in a respectful manner with old mates then we may be able to influence a brighter future.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 29th Dec 2016 at 10:06.