Future Force Structure
 

Anyone able to say anything definitive about the future RAF Force structure? Heard chat about the dissolution of the Gp structure, creation of 1* Force Commanders rusticated out to MOBs but was after something a little more solid.

Yup, 1-star and below "rustication" of Group staffs is going to happen to new super-FHQs. Another reason why I left as it will be a piggin' disaster.

LJ

RAF will be just about a third of the size of when I joined in 89.

I will not be in it, but I will have a few stories to bore the old people's home care assistants with. :\

Likewise, joined with 98,500 and left 22yrs later with 33,500...:(

If this is going to happen do we know the rationale behind it?

Oh Gawd, I feel old!! Joined in '56 and left in '80. I think we probably had more JP's at Linton in '67 than the RAF has total aircraft now! BUT, had a great time with great people and they haven't changed that much!! (Just not very many of them!). Still the best Service, despite all political attempts to make it otherwise!!!:ok::ok::ok:

It changes on an almost daily basis. Not long ago the CinC did his 'Town Hall' thing at Air, the slide he showed of the structure changed between the morning and afternoon seeeions. :ugh:

Often attributed to one Gaius Petronius:

"We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any situation by reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."

CinC's latest Town Hall on 7 Nov gave the current picture from 2013....available on t'Intranet if you route around.

Any chance of a clue as to where?

The hopeless Defence Intranet search engine failed to find it but did suggest that the preferred term for 'town' should be 'urban area'. :ugh:

I guess I'll spend the next 30 minutes trawling around various illogicaly linked pages looking for the document rather than actually reading the information I was looking for.

I know it is not nice seeing reductions but you guys have got to get real. It took you ages to recognise that you were vastly over-manned despite many studies reaching just that conclusion. You have the most luxurious deployment ratio (1 in 5, compared to RN's 1 in 3 and Army's 1 in 4), which results in extra people and extra aircraft. I know it may not feel like it but it is true.

The government requirement is for expeditionary forces that can enable to maximum flexibility in their options for effect. It is why they have stuck to their guns on the carriers (not because there was a watertight contract - although it was convenient to assume this was the case).

The other thing you chaps need to realise is that the rotary (post Afgh) and F35/F18 guys are going to spend a lot of time at sea - especially the latter as "cats and traps" skills need loads of practice. The USN use the "once at sea, stay at sea" mantra for their FW sqns.

Bismark, you are comparing 'apples with pears'.

There are sound reasons for the different harmony targets. I say targets because not all elements/forces achieve them.

If we all strive to achieve the lowest common denominator from each service we will be in a very poor place.

Not sure I understand the 'once at sea, stay at sea' bit - could you shed some light?

Bismark - could you point out which studies showed we are vastly overmanned?

Without wishing to come across as terribly single service, but I currently work alongside the Army and even they are now acknowledging that they cannot justify their current numbers in the post cold war era . As such they are looking to slim down a lot of their cold war logs chain that was needed to support the heavy armour and artillery units that will rarely be called for in future.

If 30,000 and a handfull of sqns is overmanned, then what commitments do you propose we drop? Because frankly, we are struggling at the moment to meet those commitments with what we do have; we will meet the commitments levied on us, but there is little to no flexibility or capacity to do anything else at the same time.

30 minutes?!

Bloody hell, I spend days looking for stuff I ('m told I) need to read only to realise I wish I'd never bothered looking in the first place once I do find it.

I am bored of hearing about harmony ratios. The army is 100k - if they truly operated anything like 1 in 4, then they would have 25k deployed. Clearly, some elements of the army hardly ever deploy and some go much more frequently than even 1 in 4. The same applies to the RAF. Much of this is unavoidable if we want to retain a balanced force mix - we can't just switch fast jet squadrons to rotary for a few months and vice versa. Both the army and RAF are doing what they can to introduce more flexibility. As for the Navy, I admire those who wish to join and are prepared to spend a great deal of time away from home, but it was ever thus and it is intrinsic to the job.

Only can find military (DII) link - search for HQ AIR CSR Portal & 'Current Messages'...

(Soz but I'm rubbish with hyperlinks...:()

Melch,

I can think of 3 since Option for Change, one conducted by an RAF senior officer and 2 by a joint team. Much focussed on the requirement to man and support so many DOBs (hence the CMR) when no-one could imagine a situation where so many would be required. The studies also looked at sqn structure whereby a sqn appeared to be manned for, say, 14 aircraft when actually there were only 9 or 10 on the front line strength , the rest were in depth maintainance etc - the RN certainly only manned to the front line strength (ie 9-10 a/c). Your "white ticket" calculation also made you look over-manned compared to the RN and Army.

Re "what should we drop?" One of the first things you could do is extend your deployment lengths beyond 4 months and one day (or whatever it is). It has just been reported that PW is going to the FIs for 6 weeks rotation - what does such a short rotation cost? Why not 6 months rotation like the RN do down there.

Odigron,

Cats and traps flying requires constant practice and is not something you can hop on and off with (as the RAF did with Harrier). The USN flies daily at sea for pretty well the whole deployment - just look at the many videos to see why constant practice is required.

Bismark, thank you for the explanation.

As for deployment lengths, I don't support the 'this is what the RN do, therefore, so should you' approach. I'm also not convinced that there is significant evidence to support the hypothesis that longer tour lengths equals savings.

Surely the squadrons are manned to their FEAR requirement which then drives the number of aircraft required at the front line to meet the training and currency needs of that manning?

How is it sorted where there are 'independent' single service units within a joint organisation? For example did the NSW undertake 6 month roulements on HERRICK (because they could within the RN rules)?