PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   RAF Leadership (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/343687-raf-leadership.html)

speeddial 18th Sep 2008 15:23

RAF Leadership
 
Can someone please confirm or correct me with my observation that the RAF leadership tree looks like this?

Sec of State for Defence - Des Browne MP
-> Minister of State for Armed Forces - Bob Ainsworth MP
-->Chief of the Defence Staff - ACM Sir Jock Stirrup
--->Chief of the Air Staff - ACM Sir Glenn Torphy
---->C in C Air Command - ACM Sir Clive Loader
----->DCinC Ops - AM Iain McNoll
------>AOC 1Gp/AOC 2Gp/AOC 22Gp

I'm Off! 18th Sep 2008 16:33

The RAF has Leadership?


Our battles are directed???

Chugalug2 18th Sep 2008 18:37

The RAF leadership tree looks more like:
Station Commander
Wing Commanders
Squadron/Unit Commanders
Flight Commanders
SNCOs
NCOs
Above the top of this tree there merely extends a bureaucracy with management levels often misleadingly titled as Commanders, Commanders in Chief, etc

Evalu8ter 18th Sep 2008 18:43

"Our battles are directed??? "

Only if defending Typhoon numbers against the other services........

Isn't PUS/2nd PUS in that loop somewhere?

KeepItTidy 18th Sep 2008 19:01

Well there is a new word Leadership , something the military has yet to discover.

Just think of a triangle but place it upside down , too many saying we should do this and that but too little to actually do it .

Sooner this gets looked at then things can start to recover

Tricorn 18th Sep 2008 19:24


The RAF leadership tree looks more like:
Station Commander
Wing Commanders
Squadron/Unit Commanders
Flight Commanders
SNCOs
NCOs
And the WOs?????????:=

loady wannabe 18th Sep 2008 20:02

Surely WO's come under the same band as SNCO's??

AdLib 18th Sep 2008 20:06

Oops.

I think you said that out loud.

Tricorn 18th Sep 2008 20:16


Surely WO's come under the same band as SNCO's??
Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!:=:=

My office - tomorrow - 0800 - a hat will not be required:}

Rigga 18th Sep 2008 20:32

Wow! - I didn't know the "Peter Principle" went so far up the chain

Good luck to all who remain.

speeddial 18th Sep 2008 21:06

Thanks for the answers so far, I guess my question is focused on the government to military chain of command?

loady wannabe 18th Sep 2008 21:08

Oh sorry is a WO officer not the most senior of the Senior Non Comissioned Officers???

My appologies.... I'll wear my hat though... I like to keep it on!! ;)

In Tor Wot 18th Sep 2008 21:57


Can someone please confirm or correct me with my observation that the RAF leadership tree looks like this?
It actually looks like this:

4* 3
3* 6
2* 25
1* 96
Gp Capt 310
Wg Cdr 1190
Sqn Ldr 2620
Flt Lt 4130
FO/PO 1180

(as at 1 Jul 08)

The only real question I have is, where do we manage to employ 96 Air Cdres?

Dengue_Dude 18th Sep 2008 22:04

Or put another way
 
The RAF have more Flag Officers than aircraft?

Hmmmm

CounterSunk 18th Sep 2008 22:07


Oh sorry is a WO officer not the most senior of the Senior Non Comissioned Officers???
A WO holds the Queens Warrant. The sign outside most Seniors Messes is also a clue, "Warrant Officers & Senior Non-Commissioned Officers Mess"

PingDit 18th Sep 2008 23:58

And they are both incorrect. They should read:
'WO's & SNCO's Mess' - This method then makes recognition of Flight Sergeants and Chief Technicians as well as Sergeants.

MAINJAFAD 19th Sep 2008 00:56


The only real question I have is, where do we manage to employ 96 Air Cdres?


Doing jobs what were once that of Wing Commanders and Group Captains. (Being official spies in other people's countries (AKA Air Attaches) and Commanding RAF Stations).

Is the not still the Air Force Board somewhere in the picture (for day to day policy matters at least).

A2QFI 19th Sep 2008 01:52

We obviously need one Air Commodore per Typhoon!

It's Not Working 19th Sep 2008 06:07

Pingdit


And they are both incorrect. They should read:
'WO's & SNCO's Mess' - This method then makes recognition of Flight Sergeants and Chief Technicians as well as Sergeants.
Close but not close enough, you might be right one day but not just yet. They should read:

WOs' and SNCOs' Mess

Pontius Navigator 19th Sep 2008 07:39


Originally Posted by It's Not Working (Post 4406503)
Pingdit



Close but not close enough, you might be right one day but not just yet. They should read:

WOs' and SNCOs' Mess

Pingdit is more correct.

The abbrevation of a plural is not shown so that Warrant Officer and Warrant Officers is WO and the possessive for either is thus WO's.

However I believe it would also be correct to say Warrant Officers's Mess. :)

However many pedants would avoid this by eloquent variation and say Mess or Messes for Warrant Officers.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:24.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.