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)?

Wrath,

The RAF system used to be more complicated than that - maybe it still is. The RAF system was based on things like the following: core working day, entitled training time, duty time, leave time, sickness time etc etc. it is why an RAF sqn always seemed over-manned compared to an RN sqn and why there were always more RAF people on training courses than the RN - training time etc was built into the "white ticket" calculation whereas in the RN it wasn't/isn't. RN manning is based around the "watch and station bill" and the ability to man 2 defence watches at sea - core working day etc did not come into it.

Re NSW and 6 month tours....if they were under RN control they would have done, but they were operating an RAF roulement. The issue above is also why 800 and 801 struggled to achieve full manning and hence formation - the RAF insisted on areas of manning on sqqns that the RN structure did not support - QFIs being a classic example.

Odigron,

You may not agree with the RN system but the facts speak for themselves...the RN is the leanest manned Service and when the financial stops are visible then what is the case for the RAF system of manning. It is interesting that RN PVR rates were always amongst the lowest in the 3 Services so the 1 in 3 system can't be that bad.

DASA figures, released yesterday do not support your statement, they indicate that the Voluntary outflow rate from RN is higher than RAF.

Thanks Bismarck - of course the true formula for working out RAF manning is deliberately complicated in order to cause confusion amongst the RN and Army!;) The calculations used even differ, within the RAF, between the FJ and AT fleets - which is fine until you have to explain them to your 1* dyed in the wool light blue wearing joint force helicopter chap ...:ok:

IMHO anyone who thinks running a long-term 1 in 3 deployment plot is a good way of looking after the well-being of our people has either never worked such a plot, or has no real interest in a family life. That's not to say I don't have the utmost respect for those personnel of all 3 Services who are working such plots.

As for the Falkands, RAF officers in ground tours do do six month tours (I've done one) for continuity reasons. There are good Service reasons why SAR aircrew do not do six month tours; in addition it is far better for individuals - let's not screw people if we don't have to!!!

Odigron,

My piece is written in the past tense. Also, I am not sure whether current stats are particularly relevant to a steady state, non redundancy, situation.

By the by, I could not find any PVR stats in the DASA tables. can you provide a link? All I could see were overall outflow rates the majority of which will be normal leavers at the end of their commissions/service.

Bis,

I can't see any PVR stats on the DASA site either. However, the site does say that 'Voluntary Outflow is defined as all exits from trained UK Regular Forces which are voluntarily generated by the individual before the end of their agreed engagement or commission period.' I guess that's close to PVR.

The stats back to 2006 all show RN Voluntary Outflow is higher than RAF. I can't seem to access stats before that. Nonetheless, I think they could be considered relevant.

Bismark

Try this link - clicky

(source document - clicky)

Ta. They are all pretty low rates.

The logistic requirements for swapping deployed sqns is minimal - a single movement of 100-200 pers being the sum total for a formed unit move such as practised by Tornado sqns, or a steady drip-feed for non-formed deployments such as the FI. The aircraft, tools and spares all remain in situ. That small logistic requirement is a small price to pay for the goodwill of our people.

I think that 4 months is already too long for some kinds of deployment. Deployed operations will only ever involve part of the skill-set for which a sqn trains - FJ sqns in Afghanistan, for example, will not get any routine low-flying, radar SAM evasion or air-to-air work for the whole time they are deployed, and the rate of weapons employment is low with a narrow range of options available. In-theatre training is impossible, with the sole exception of a very limited strafe facility at the KAF range. After months of this, skill fade is a serious issue - would you like to be a JTAC danger-close to a target being strafed by a pilot who hasn't done a pass in 6 months? You can mitigate this to an extent by rotations for simulator training in the UK - but then you might as well rotate sqns instead. Afterwards, sqns need a significant period of consolidation to recover other skills. 6 months would make this problem even worse than it already is.

The standard TELIC det for the Tornado force was 8 weeks per squadron. After such a brief hiatus in normal sqn activity, training for contingency roles could easily pick up where it had left off. Not the case any more, where the longer dets (with their associated extended post-op leave) come to define the whole year - particularly when the amount of pre-deployment bo**ocks now adds up to about 2 weeks of no-fly!

Many of us would not have joined the RAF had routine 6-month deployments been part of the deal; those who chose to join the RN did so in full knowledge that they would be away for a significant proportion of their time. There are upsides to the RN lifestyle - a degree of geographic stability for families for one, which is emphatically NOT the case in the RAF. Our downside is a 2 - 3 year posting cycle to locations in all corners of the UK, and postings between front-line / training / staff tours virtually always require a move. It looks like the Army will be joining the RAF in this lifestyle as they take over our old airfields!

Bissy,

I don't see what is wrong with the RAF system of using many different factors in calculating manning on the sqn; surely core day, sickness, leave and so on provide a far more realistic plot. Perhaps you can view it as the RN have got it wrong and they are not being realistic with their figures/assumptions and, thus, screwing over their own?

Just a thought.

Why is it any different for the RN? You could be deployed to a Plymouth, Portsmouth, Faslane unit, and if any aviator as well then Prestwick, Yeovilton and Culdrose come in to the equation. For shore-based tours (ground tours) you could find yourself all over the place - as much as the RAF surely?

I did say a degree of stability. Yes, there are some RN jobs all over the country but the overwhelming majority are in the south. There is no one area of the UK that someone in the RAF can settle in and expect to spend the majority of their career within an hour or two's drive. Unless you work on the transport fleet!

Different ships, different cap tallies.
 

Bismark;

Send a UK SAR crew to the FI for 6 months and all SAR orientated currency starts to fall away. Yes, you can work 24 on, 24 off, for 6 months with your two 4 man crews, (with the regular incursions into your 24 off) but it would become debilitating after a very short period. I've done it loads of times (24 on/off, that is).

The training required to recover UK flying awareness after 6 months away would be a significant cost, and, as there is a paucity of crews, a 6 week rotation is actually cost effective in returning a crew as quickly as possible back to UK SAROp standard, and maintain the expertise that the UK needs.

The deployed time for a SAR crew to the FI is a balance; to retain optimum skills at UK and MPA, with minimum time (and cost) to get back online, and do it safely.

Different ships, different cap tallies. When the RN deploy for 6 months, they don't go and do another 6 monther on return to the UK. The tightly manned UKSARF (RN/RAF/CG) is watchon-stopon, all the time.

In summary; Manpower available (Cost), Maintaining skillset (Cost), Flight Safety (....).

How you dare to compare the deployment ratio of a warship against the SAR force leaves me speechless! The average SARF guy/girl almost certainly lives within 30 mins of their home and is probably present in that home at least every other day when on duty and every day when not on 1st call (I've done it).

My neighbour's son is in the RN on a running warship and he has hardly been at home all year - an 8 month deployment, short leave and maintenance on return (6 weeks), then back to sea for 5 weeks exercises with France etc, off to Libya on the gun-line, return and now working up for the next 6 monther at Christmas. He loves it - mainly because he is saving loads of dosh for a house and the ship's morale is sky high.

EASY, If a survey was done I would be interested to know what percentage of staff at Lossie have spent their career to the N of Aviemore or in the Lincoln clutch, or at Benson/Odiham.

Once again Bis, I agree with somethings that you say, but disagree with others.

I have no difficulty accepting that your neighbour's son loves all the time at sea. Nearly all young service personnel I have met love the time away in the beginning. But how long will he love it for? Another 5 years, 10 years, more? People's circumstances change, they get married, they have children and their love of spending time away can often dwindle.

I do have sympathy with your outrage at the comparison between RN ship deployment and SARF deployments. That said, I also suspect that an RN deployment is rather 'cushier' than most 6 month army deployments. You are rightly proud of your service/former service, but let's not get into the compair and contrast argument, each service does things in a different way for good reasons. Something's the RN does are better than the Army, some are not.

Bismark

I wasn't comparing deployed time. Your question was about cost.

So why doesn't the SARF deploy to FI for 4-months?

How long do the Q crews deploy for?

I'm curious about this.

Having read PPRrune for a while a common (and reasonable) concern is the lack of flying hours. If there are only a small amount of flying hours per month how many of these hours would be needed just to maintain cat-n-trap currency rather than focussing on the other skills that are required - low-level, CAS, ACM, etc? (Obviously, no matter what the training mission, you've got to get back on the deck at the end)

Along these lines there's an old jibe from the USAF towards the USN about how the USN would be the clear winners in any war providing that it was fought on the basis of being able to land on a carrier.

Given the likelihood that flying hours won't be going up in the future, is it a cost effective use of what flying hours there are to spend them on maintaining cat-n-trap currency?

What makes you assume this man is young and single? Ships are manned (and wo-manned) by older married officers, warrant officers and senior rates, too. Perhaps he is living in MQs and saving to buy a house before he leaves the RN?

As for:

Less hazardous maybe but "cushier"? Try telling that to those working 6 on/6 off in defence watches for months on end without the opportunity to take an afternoon off, wander into a McDonalds, kick a football around the square or have a few zeds in the sun. Or to these fellows who are currently spending the best part of ten months at a time submerged in a sardine tin:


This is the Trafalgar Class SSN Turbulent which is currently away for 10 months. When Triumph returns next year, she’ll have been away for 13 of the previous 17 months. Their sister boat Tireless completed a ten-month deployment in the spring.

Sometimes, the differences in the services, and their ethos, are really laid bare.