Independent RAF
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BV, admittedly he is not a prolific poster but his earlier posts are completely authentic. I know John I know the Bill to whom he refers.
Maybe he has never bothered to engage with Pprune, maybe like others he uses more than one nickname.
Maybe he has never bothered to engage with Pprune, maybe like others he uses more than one nickname.
Early days on Apache. Technicians ordered to fix faults within time scales, everything stopped for sport, everything stopped for soldier first, but the best one was everything stopped for RSMs tea and toast in the Sgts Mess at 10.00 on the first Thursday of the month. Hopefully it’s a lot better these days. I take it ‘soldier first’ has long gone in the RAF, what stupid idea even if the rocks loved it! We need to remember the reasons the RAF was formed in the first place.
A quick check on his profile shows he has only previously commented on a couple of Vulcan threads (he is ex RAF Vulcan) and this is the only thread he has started. Perhaps his status as ex RCAF explains his desire to 'blob up' military forces.
It's just clickbait - trying to stir up everyone
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pay level in Civvy Street doesn't always equate to the size of an organisation, it tends to be a blend of experience, knowledge, performance (especially if bonuses are involved) and available budget.
If you were to start building the Armed Forces now from ground up, I very much doubt that it would look anything like it does. There are vast areas which are just not economical. For example, why 3 separate Command Structures? No civilian organisation would have separate Corporate structures; however, no organisation would want to have divisions which are completing against each other for output (although it happens a lot with big Corporations which have gone through many mergers).
One corporate (Strategic/Command) structure, separate divisional structures for differing outputs. Minimise the number of staff who do not have a direct effect on output. It's all pretty simple management principles.
Have a read of the 'Using Rank on Retirement' thread, it's very enlightening lol
Pay level in Civvy Street doesn't always equate to the size of an organisation, it tends to be a blend of experience, knowledge, performance (especially if bonuses are involved) and available budget.
If you were to start building the Armed Forces now from ground up, I very much doubt that it would look anything like it does. There are vast areas which are just not economical. For example, why 3 separate Command Structures? No civilian organisation would have separate Corporate structures; however, no organisation would want to have divisions which are completing against each other for output (although it happens a lot with big Corporations which have gone through many mergers).
One corporate (Strategic/Command) structure, separate divisional structures for differing outputs. Minimise the number of staff who do not have a direct effect on output. It's all pretty simple management principles.
Pay level in Civvy Street doesn't always equate to the size of an organisation, it tends to be a blend of experience, knowledge, performance (especially if bonuses are involved) and available budget.
If you were to start building the Armed Forces now from ground up, I very much doubt that it would look anything like it does. There are vast areas which are just not economical. For example, why 3 separate Command Structures? No civilian organisation would have separate Corporate structures; however, no organisation would want to have divisions which are completing against each other for output (although it happens a lot with big Corporations which have gone through many mergers).
One corporate (Strategic/Command) structure, separate divisional structures for differing outputs. Minimise the number of staff who do not have a direct effect on output. It's all pretty simple management principles.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One corporate structure (MOD), separate div structures (Navy, Army, Air, Strategic Comd, etc) for differing outputs. Is Defence not organised that way (accepting some differences, such as: it being the ‘no-fail’ instrument of last resort; and the need to train its own people to a scale and degree rarely if ever replicated in civilian enterprise)?
How does one separate genuine, thought-through argument from dyed-in-the-wool resistance to change ? Is the source more important than the content?
Perhaps it is what used to be referred to as "Run it up the flagpole ..."
Perhaps it is what used to be referred to as "Run it up the flagpole ..."
An independent RAF is becoming hard to justify. The Royal Navy, with its new carriers and aircraft could easily take on the RAF role on land. The Fleet Air Arm had a number of land bases in the past. As for transport aircraft, the work is done chiefly for the British Army so the army could take that part over. Training could be done at an MOD unit. Central Flying School would remain, as part of the MOD.
Any thoughts/opinions?
Any thoughts/opinions?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The answer isn't to absorb the RAF into the other services (too much resistance) or try to do a Canada and smash them all together; it's to form a whole new world order. Change all 3 & the MOD.
No, each 'div' has a corporate structure. The whole point is that there are too many conflicting layers to the structure. The customer UK Gov is also part of the Corp Structure. MOD also part customer/part Corp/Part Div (MOD agencies). Each service has it's own Corp structure and many conflicting divs. To say it's wasteful would be an understatement.
Base your analysis on the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
Last edited by Rheinstorff; 11th Feb 2021 at 13:47.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No, I think you’re making too simplistic a comparison. The differences between any public and commercial enterprise in the UK is huge. HMG as sole customer and shareholder, vastly complex HMT imposed policies around procurement, employment, use of and accounting for money. These are just not replicated to anything like the same scale or degree, where they exist at all.
Base your analysis on the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
Base your analysis on the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
(ps my analysis is based on the real world I live in, the private sector)
Not really, Northrop Grumman has circa 120,000 employees and 4 Divisions over numerous geographical locations worldwide. It's a vastly complex business and easily on a scale similar to HM Armed Forces. However, there's only one Corporate structure and turns a pretty profit. There are those who get on with it and see through the trees to the solution, and there are those who make excuses because they know no better and because it's always been done that way.
(ps my analysis is based on the real world I live in, the private sector)
(ps my analysis is based on the real world I live in, the private sector)
I was really enjoying this thread until it started to go all serious. Mr LeBrun obviously just wanted a few laughs and everyone was doing really well for the first page or so. Come on, back to the banter!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have the benefit of working in both Defence and in the private sector as a NED as well as being the chair of a charity. Scale is one thing, but you’re not addressing my point about what it means to be in the Government sector. The rules are numerous, onerous and in addition to those faced by the commercial sector. Oh, and the opposition is seldom out to win more than the next contract.
kintyred
Sorry, I'll stop it now
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An independent RAF is becoming hard to justify. The Royal Navy, with its new carriers and aircraft could easily take on the RAF role on land. The Fleet Air Arm had a number of land bases in the past. As for transport aircraft, the work is done chiefly for the British Army so the army could take that part over. Training could be done at an MOD unit. Central Flying School would remain, as part of the MOD.
I know this is PPRUNE, so I'll keep it aviation... there is limited value (IMHO) of having three aviation arms (four if you include the coastguard). It makes sense to combine them all into one... whether it is called the Air Force, the Air Arm or the Air Corps (or even the Air Guard) does not matter. But Air's standing should be at the same level as Land and Sea.
[/Wah]
But in parallel, why does the Army have so many separate Infantry and Armour/Cavalry "regiments" - a single multi-battalion Corps of Infantry and a single multi-Regiment Armour/Cavalry Corps would make more sense... or even a single, combined, Combat Arms Corps
or even a single, combined, Combat Arms Corps
Sorry, thread drift - this was supposed to be an airing of the regular "Why don't we disband the RAF" discussion. I apologise.
The RAF's never been the same since the Hairy Mary No2 battledresses and collar-detachable shirts were phased out. Oh, and those 'pregnancy' raincoats and grey servicing overalls with dark blue collars that had no relationship between height and girth. But at least they had a station posting list that stretched to 4 pages of A4 and more aircraft than the SWO could shake his pointed stick at. 
