Next CAS
The tricky fleet must be what is known as hollowed out, because said individual cannot have enough hours to be referred to as SQEP.
Leadership is definitely required now, it’s pointless having the best toys if your people are walking away, leaving the dead wood.
CAS rolled over in front of the Select Committee when asked if he had enough aircraft; he’ll never be forgotten for his appalling performance.
The following users liked this post:
The following 4 users liked this post by superplum:
And once again, we descend into a leadership, command and management debacle. The RAF, tbh the whole UK Armed Forces, has had a woeful record of poor leadership at flag officer level for a number of decades now and the rot has set it. We seem to have drifted from our core role that seems to have become implied rather than clearly articulated, to fight and win the Nation’s wars when called upon to do so. As I reflect upon my own meagre contribution I fear history will not be kind to us for our results post 1990; the world is neither safer nor more secure and yet we continue to salami slice what little we have left from the Front Line across all the Services. Don’t get me going on ‘life after the Binbrook model…’
This 23 year old must be amazing, through the training system and a Captain at 23!!
The tricky fleet must be what is known as hollowed out, because said individual cannot have enough hours to be referred to as SQEP.
Leadership is definitely required now, it’s pointless having the best toys if your people are walking away, leaving the dead wood.
CAS rolled over in front of the Select Committee when asked if he had enough aircraft; he’ll never be forgotten for his appalling performance.
The tricky fleet must be what is known as hollowed out, because said individual cannot have enough hours to be referred to as SQEP.
Leadership is definitely required now, it’s pointless having the best toys if your people are walking away, leaving the dead wood.
CAS rolled over in front of the Select Committee when asked if he had enough aircraft; he’ll never be forgotten for his appalling performance.
Not suggesting that groundcrew are unfit for top roles at all….Rich Knighton is a class act.
I never really understood the Royal Navy's habit of giving command of random selections of ratings to aircrew officers. I can see that they (the officers) would get early exposure to the disciplinary system and the opportunity to provide the leadership, counselling and guidance that is expected from JO's; it just seems that if there is a disconnect between the rating's work supervisor and their Oi/c general welfare-and-discip, they might be able to play one off against the other. Avoidance of the "One Person 2 Bosses" thing and all that. I would be interested in a considered opinion from someone who had experience of that system, by way of comparison with the way things are done with RAF JO.
The allocation of ratings to an aircrew officer is/was not really command of them though. Their day to day employment was controlled by the, mainly, engineering management. Allocation of ratings to aircrew was specifically done as part of the Divisional system which the RN uses for most of the things that a good HR set up will do. Welfare, Progress Reporting, Promotion, Discipline and the like. Their are not enough engineer officers on a Naval Air Squadron to take on the whole Divisional load and do it properly so aircrew are involved, to their benefit as well as the system's My experience covers both 826, an embarked pinger Squadron and 815, providing the ship's Lynx flights. Both may be a lot dated.
The flights are easiest. Any Flight Commander , Flobs or Flight Pilot who does not know from proximity and team working, all the members of the team ( both the engineering and warfare members) extremely well, so as to be able to fill the role of their Divisional Officer, is not going far. Help, advice and assistance is (was) part of the parenting function of the HQ, bug the ultimate responsibility lie with the ship CO. The HQ squadron AEO (SEngo) is invariably the senior DO and so this falls to him/her, acting as a standardiser for annual reports etc. as well.
The set up in 826 relied more on the Senior DO, (AEO again) making sure that the junior aircrew DO's are putting in the necessary effort. Slackers can expect increasingly firm advice, and ultimately a one-way conversation with the CO.. Assessments of an individual"s technical ability, and standards can, and are expected to, be sought from Senior Ratings, Watch Controllers and the Squadron Senior Maintainer. Each Division will usually have a Senior Rating allocated as a Divisional Senior Rating or sub-DO who is a good starting point for this sort of thing.
N
The following 7 users liked this post by Bengo:
I wonder what will happen to people like Mayhew, who is currently on secondment to industry, I understand. I can't see where he might go other than to MOD or NATO. There will then need to be a couple of three star posts up for grabs.
Was there a specific reason why ACM Wigston was extended? That suggests that there were no candidates thought suitable to be advanced to CAS at that time.
Old Duffer
Was there a specific reason why ACM Wigston was extended? That suggests that there were no candidates thought suitable to be advanced to CAS at that time.
Old Duffer
I wonder what will happen to people like Mayhew, who is currently on secondment to industry, I understand. I can't see where he might go other than to MOD or NATO. There will then need to be a couple of three star posts up for grabs.
Was there a specific reason why ACM Wigston was extended? That suggests that there were no candidates thought suitable to be advanced to CAS at that time.
Old Duffer
Was there a specific reason why ACM Wigston was extended? That suggests that there were no candidates thought suitable to be advanced to CAS at that time.
Old Duffer
Gerry has nowhere to go….unfortunately, he missed the chance.
Divisional Officers
A Divisional Officer scheme based upon the RN system was trialled at Waddington in the late 60s early 70s. The participants were mainly on their 3rd tour with significant service experience. Definitely not 1st tour copllots selected in order to broaden their career. The reception by the engineers was, should we say, less than wholehearted. Whilst I heard no stories of obstruction, there was on some occasions a distinct lack of cooperation.
The aircrew participants that I knew felt that on the whole that, given time to adjust, the DO system could make a useful contribution. But that did not happen. Sometime after I left Waddington it was either discontinued or allowed to wither for reasons I do not know. However it all goes to show that there’s nothing new under the sun, the path has been trodden before.
YS
The aircrew participants that I knew felt that on the whole that, given time to adjust, the DO system could make a useful contribution. But that did not happen. Sometime after I left Waddington it was either discontinued or allowed to wither for reasons I do not know. However it all goes to show that there’s nothing new under the sun, the path has been trodden before.
YS
I was fortunate enough to have been a DO in the RN before moving to the RAF where one of my sqn secondary duties was as Flt Cdr to a 3 storey barrack block (90+ airmen). I think it helped me do a better job as there was a greater willingness to go in to bat on behalf of "my guys".
It also gave me a riposte later in my career when, as a Sqn Ldr, my then Rock Ape Wg Cdr boss told me I had not experience of command as he had, commanding a sqn of N (where N is a positive integer). I just pointed out "Sir, I have had had had bigger flts."
It also gave me a riposte later in my career when, as a Sqn Ldr, my then Rock Ape Wg Cdr boss told me I had not experience of command as he had, commanding a sqn of N (where N is a positive integer). I just pointed out "Sir, I have had had had bigger flts."
The following 2 users liked this post by Ninthace:
Now we can get back to the good old days, when nobody under the rank of Sgt knew who the CAS was and cared even less.
The following users liked this post:
As a total [but interested] outsider, the very nature of army vs RN vs RAF modus operandi suggests that the army [teeth arms] have an intrinsic advantage with a platoon-level "DO" and a 2 i/c, his sergeant.
I hope it remains true that the dictum was "look after the horses [or modern substitute], look after the men and their feet, look after yourself"
The young subaltern is much closer to the troops than RN and RAF by the nature of the beast.
I hope it remains true that the dictum was "look after the horses [or modern substitute], look after the men and their feet, look after yourself"
The young subaltern is much closer to the troops than RN and RAF by the nature of the beast.
The following users liked this post:
YS
Perhaps a contributory reason for the DO scheme at Waddo being allowed to wither on the vine was that one of those first selected for the role was a certain A/S.
Perhaps a contributory reason for the DO scheme at Waddo being allowed to wither on the vine was that one of those first selected for the role was a certain A/S.
LB
A similar comment was recommended to me by my FiL who had served 1915-1919 in the Life Guards front line, it was quite succinct "Horses first, men second, officers third and last"
His other comment was "honour the dead and march on", it holds little traction in today's civvy world IMHO.
"look after the horses [or modern substitute], look after the men and their feet, look after yourself"
His other comment was "honour the dead and march on", it holds little traction in today's civvy world IMHO.
As a first tourist flt cdr. I was dispatched with two coachloads of armed airmen and a Chief Technician to provide reinforcement guards for a unit in the middle of its Taceval.
We installed ourselves in their guardroom, set up control of entry and put out the sentries. After a while the conversation went as follows:
Me: "Chief, should we have a check on the sentries?"
Chief: "Good idea sir. Corporal, take 2 men with you and go and check the sentries."
Cpl: "Yes Chief!"
Chief: "And take the officer with you"
Cpl: "Yes Chief!"
Chief: "And look after him ' cos I have signed for him"
Cpl: "Yes Chief!"
Chief: "And you sir, you do as the good Cpl tells you!"
Me: "Yes Chief!"
Times were simpler then.
We installed ourselves in their guardroom, set up control of entry and put out the sentries. After a while the conversation went as follows:
Me: "Chief, should we have a check on the sentries?"
Chief: "Good idea sir. Corporal, take 2 men with you and go and check the sentries."
Cpl: "Yes Chief!"
Chief: "And take the officer with you"
Cpl: "Yes Chief!"
Chief: "And look after him ' cos I have signed for him"
Cpl: "Yes Chief!"
Chief: "And you sir, you do as the good Cpl tells you!"
Me: "Yes Chief!"
Times were simpler then.
The following 4 users liked this post by Ninthace:
I like the apochryphal tale of the cavalry subaltern being shown a Harrier [not a T] at an Open Day.
Harrier pilot, showing cockpit : ..... "this is my office ........"
Cavalry sub: "but where does the responsible NCO sit?".
Harrier pilot, showing cockpit : ..... "this is my office ........"
Cavalry sub: "but where does the responsible NCO sit?".
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the army, the officers send the troops into the fight
In the navy, the officers and sailors go into the fight together.
In the air force, NCOs send officers into the fight.
Of course this is not really true, but perhaps it does illustrates some of the differences required in leadership?
The following 2 users liked this post by langleybaston: