Pilot V Technician
 

Good evening ladies and gents,

Am seeking a credible source concerning the ratio of pilots to support personnel in a modern day military environment as opposed to a front line environment during the second world war.


Warlock

probably the same ratio. we have much less aircraft than in WW2, much less pilots and much less support staff.

Never in the field of human conflict have so few had to borrow so much from so many.

Semi seriously, you should perhaps also try to factor in the effects that modern ac bring, eg the use of PGM increases the likelihood of target elimination with fewer sorties as opposed to the area bombing tactics of UK or US WWII campaigns.
Taken to the extreme there was no WWII bomber able to carry the offensive load of a B52.
Similarly modern air superiority ac have an immensely greater SSKP than their WWII counterparts through automation and the use of AAM.

Are you sure airpolice? Some might argue that RAF technicians have been systematically deskilled in recent years.

S-D

S-D

It's a good question. I think techies in previous generations had more skill of hand training and experience, because that what was needed - the ability to repair structure or electrical cabling. These days, I think we need people who are better at fault diagnosis. Perversely, the introduction of Built-In-Test capability in many of our newer aircraft has actually increased the need for analytical thought as the complex interplay of the various aircraft systems can make tracking down a fault horrendously complicated.

That doesn't make one generation better or worse than the next.

All what has been said so far is correct. I will add another couple of things. Firstly BIT. BIT is only as good as the sytem requirements.

I am an Ex RAF Comms Technician so fit into the older technician bracket, so have some knowledge.

However, as part of the team working on the EFA DASS. We were not allowed to expand the range of BIT outside what was required/mandated by the requirements despite the fact that I knew what it did not cover. So BIT is a useful tool but it will not point you in the correct direction all the time hence where system wide knowledge and not only sub system knowledge is useful.

One thing which can reduce the amount of technical support is good logistics back up. Having spares redilly available is helpful beyond measure. The amount of time taken to Rob spares and do the paperwork is unbelievable. With good spares back up and instantly available, aaahhhhhh luxury.

During the "Cold War" era, I was trained on most Valliant/Victor & Vulcan Radar Systems. When a defective "Black Box" came in, the first thing that I would reach for was my trusty oscilloscope & volt meter. There was no such luxury as diagnostics & we had to fault find down to component level i.e. resistor, capacitor or valve. What we would have given for integrated curcuits & diagnosing down to card level !

After leaving the RAF, I went on to develop computer products with a Multi National Company, where I was given the option to use low cost (knuckle dragging) engineers & a red button that would diagnose the problem & tell the engineer what to change, or use an expensive fully trained engineer with little or no diagnostics. It was a cost thing.

As far as parts procurement was concerned, I found the "VOG" (V-Bomber On the Ground) emergency request very good.

I couldn't agree more with what VIProds says as I was of the same ilk, V Force Radar/NBS. The difference between our era and today is as he says, we had no diagnostic equipment other than basic signal generators, AVO Mk8 and osciloscopes. Another difference is that we were trained to operate at 1st, 2nd or 3rd line. It seems to me that today, 2nd and 3rd line are contracted out and 1st line avionics is largely dependent on BIT telling the operator what to change so it follows that the training revolves around BIT interpretation and not logical electronic thinking. The last major system that I was involved in had a BIT system and compared to sorting out a complex NBS fault, it was a doddle.

As for modern Techies being hamstrung with secondary duties, I feel this is largely due to weak supervision some 20 years ago, I noticed it starting to appear just before I left. When completing a juniors 6442, a lot of supervisors would give people "generous" awards rather than risk an argument. This over assesment spread as even the supervisors who played fair found that they were having to be generous in order that their guys stood any chance of coming off the board. Eventually most people were all at the top and board candidates could not be differentiated between, as a result, further criteria were introduced and thats were the secondary duty importance came from, it was a means of identifying good candidates as due to over assesment, everyone appeared to be above average at their primary roles.

The father of the couple that service my car (father and son team) used to service Yorks. Now they service my car but not at the box change level.

For instance one problem at the main dealer was 'diagnosed' as requiring a new hydraulic pump at £1000 plus labour (VAT may well have been extra). They fixed the pump with a new washer at a total cost of £18.

You might save a bomb on training and 2nd/3rd line maintenance but probably spend a fortune on 4th line.

Ex techie here. Nothing to add other than when I joined up I was Nav Inst. Then I became Flight Systems (same job, different name) then I became Avionics (same job different name.) Valves were still de rigeur back in my day and transistors were mentioned during trade training as 'the future'.

The most important part of being a techie was to always have an procedure AP in your hand while looking thoughtfully at a broken jet. No one bothered you.

When I became an NCO the most important possession was a clipboard and a pen. Walk 'with purpose' with one of those in your hand and again no one bothered you. I must have walked hundreds of miles 'with purpose.'

A huge problem, when trying to answer this question, is civilianization/contractorisation. An example:

In 2003, 84 Sqn (RAF Akrotiri), replaced it's 4 Wessex Acft with 4 Bell 412 Acft.

The 58 Military engineers/line'ies were replaced with 5 civilians.

It killed the Sqn. The ethos and 'magic' died overnight. Please do not misunderstand - the civvies hired were ALL excellent, thoroughy professional and the sort of guys you wanted working on 'your' aircraft (all ex-RAF...), but it was NOT any longer an RAF Sqn.

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

I had the privelidge of learning how to be an engineer from the RAF.
It stood me in great stead for life outside - particularly in how to think outside the box and fault find.....

Thanks to all who helped this fat oik get where he is today.

Now - get your arses outside and generate me some warbirds.....!

Choppa, interested to know what was deemed unnecessary that the other 53 had done.

I know where I was they went down to 15 or so from 90. One reason was that the guys that drove the vehicles serviced the vehicles, dug them out when required, painted them, brought their own lunch to work, washed up, cleaned the place, washed the yard, used a local GP etc etc.

We still needed a visit by a radar tech, met techs, works and bricks types, barrack stores types etc but not education or fitness chappies. Mind you none of those would have been in your 53 anyway.

Pontius,

I was a A Tech P (Sootie)in the airforce, my licences as a Civilian, which I had to study for are Airframes and Engines, A1, B1 and C covering Piston and Gas Turbine Aircraft....
Airframes also covers all instruments and autopilots, (though I do send them away for repair) it also covers electrics, compasses and basic radio (testing without specialist equipment) likewise my Engine licence covers associated systems and propellers, hence why you require less manpower, additionally I also cert the aircraft and issue C of A Arc renewals.

When my old 3 litre supra had a big end go, I had no worry about stripping down the complete engine to component parts and rebuilding it... Goes back to the training I recieved in the RAF, though I have expanded on that grounding a bit over the ensuing years, I was lucky in the RAF in that I maintained Rotary wing, Wessex, Puma, Chinnoks... Slow Jets, Jaguar and Passenger Jets, VC 10, which again gave a good spread of knowledge, something I believe the RAF fail to do these days, once on a type always on the type.

There can be little doubt we had some dead wood! However, when we went civvy, the sqn lost 24 Op capability - if we wanted to train at night, we couldn't train in the day. The Sqn club (the scorpy) shut (the GC's ran it). Sqn happy hours ceased. The secondary duties for the aircrew quadrupled. The Sqn could no longer self-deploy overseas.

As I said - the Sqn died.

Oddly enough the RAF played with multi trade engineers many moons ago, they had the Supertech that passed out as a Corporal after 5 years and was qualified in Airframes, Engines, Electrics, Instruments and Radios if I remember rightly, but they didn't last. Additionally they had the 3 year apprentices, Airframe Engines, but it is only of late that they have took onboard dual trades with the SAC techs and have started to embrace what the civilian market has been tending to do for years.... I still cannot see how employing Civi's to do a Military job is a good thing, especially with the operations we have these days.

One thing I cannot fathom was why get rid of the JT, you have to phase a rank out, change all the paperwork, QR's etc, bring in new badges, etc etc etc... All costs money and what do you gain? Same job different name.

As for Dead Wood, I remember the rush to reduce the over abundance of Chief Techs in the late 70's! the result was those that knew they could walk into jobs in Civi Street ( generally the good ones ) went and what the Airforce was left with was those that knew they would struggle outside... Aka the Dead Wood.

I've always though of the military as a manpower orientated organisation. You may well be a super duper techy/storeman/scribbly/painter, but you were always an asset especially when it came to "here's a rifle, guard this". I can't see the 5 civvies pulling guard duty, and I may be wrong, but I doubt a JPA terminal has manned a checkpoint. Do stations even do exercises these days?

If you had met some of the riggers and sooties I've known over the years you wouldn't have to ask that....:ok:

I thought it was to evacuate the crew room before the NCO with the clipboard reached you.

airpolice
IMHO, much more communicative than your above politician speak claptrap.

:D:D