|
If anyone cares, Manning is the single biggest factor to the 3 Service Boards and the Defence Board, and they are working hard to fix it. What may, or may not, be palatable to the general audience is that the fix isn't going back to the way we did things before.
|
Thanks Alfred,
Always appreciate your top level view. So go on then, if all of our gumpf on this thread is pure hot air is acknowledged, what is the Defence Board's future solution looking like (and please don't say NEM and AFPS 18). We are smaller now, we are broke and future budget cuts inevitable - I totally get it, but how does the DB intend to hang onto its experience, highly trained people and still deliver motivated, high readiness capability with a genuine Service ethos. Lots of press releases on shiney new equipment and procurements, but how is this new kit going to operated effectively and safely? More regulation? Less mission command? Less appetite for operational risk - as long as numbers/recruiting and training pipelines are maintained - all viable options, but I fear military capability/Whole Force Concept will be reduced or end in failure. Or is there another plan to mitigate this loss of experience over the coming years? |
What may, or may not, be palatable to the general audience is that the fix isn't going back to the way we did things before. |
MM4 - I hold no brief for the DB, nor do I know the fine detail on every single proposed measure. Feel free to ask CAS.
|
You surprise me Alfred!
Many of your posts provide an insight into 'the big picture' (which even I recognise there is) at the 'top of the shop'. We both know asking CAS during one of his get togethers/'informal' chats with his guys will not get anywhere near the reality of what the Defence Board is really talking about and planning. |
Good to see today's PMQs seeing questions posed on the Armed Forces:
12:19 Armed forces We are now onto questions from backbenchers. Tory Richard Drax urges a future Conservative government not to make any further cuts to the armed forces. The PM says the UK is spending 2% of its GDP on defence and will spend £160bn on new equipment in the next decade. Not so good to see that the perception is that cuts equate to Armed Forces equipment and not to TACOS, working conditions and quality of life of its people that will operate and direct this equipment. |
The issues that are being discussed in this thread apply to all Western Militaries. All of the issues around manning are a symptom of the bigger problem, that is a widening commitment vs capability gap.
Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks. Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due...... |
The issues that are being discussed in this thread apply to all Western Militaries. All of the issues around manning are a symptom of the bigger problem, that is a widening commitment vs capability gap.
Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks. Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting for current military leaders to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due...... |
but that is nearing it's practicable limits. I recall a Paratroop Colonel in 2002 saying during a discussion on when it was going to change "We're going to have to lose a couple of wars". Well, we've lost two, and still no change. |
MM4 - I wasn't being glib. First has been pretty blunt about the state of the RN Manning challenge, he also taken multiple questions on his latest tours of the dockyards etc about what he's doing about it. Z is a pretty positive chap, and will always accentuate the positives, but there also needs to a recognition that the old way isn't necessary the best way. As an example, the majority of the RN leaves after about 5 years; how on earth have come up with a training system that takes 10+ years to deliver an engineer? Why is it we are so inconsistent with training paths, and where are the silos based? Is there utility in taking a French system for nuclear engineers, where regardless of where you work (SSN, CdG or power station), you are employed by the state, and where we can give you shore drafts with some stability but keeping you current?
There is also something about Leadership, and accepting that we are where we are, but sometimes you just need to 'knife and fork your way through something'. Don't get me wrong, most of the NavSec (and 2SL himself) area probably need to be sacked, but the RN is expanding for the first time since WW2. What needs to be cut - ruthlessly - is the OF5 buggers muddle, blurring the line between First's clear direction and able/willing sailors who want to crack on and do their jobs. There is far too much consent and evade, 'side-con' and working group-itis at the moment. |
internationalplayboy, welcome to the PPRuNe virtual crewrrom and thanks for your 'coal face' gen.
All I can say is, what a bl**dy shame. Regrettably, I can no longer recommend to anyone's youngsters, no matter how enthusiastic they might be, that it'd be worth joining today's RAF. :mad: |
Hello all- casual observer for many years!
Beagle- Why be a dream stealer? We all heard the stories while we were young and aspiring about how things were not as good as they used to be and my overriding memory was of the many, many nay sayers both mil, ex-mil, and civilian. Did it stop me? No. It made it feel like running through treacle though! Surely it is now our role to encourage the passion in the next generation in the knowledge that we understand the essence if not the detail of how things will be for them in the current and future military. Any words of discouragement would be based on our paradigm, not theirs, and it is not fair to be the wet blanket when we should be the ones making their eyes sparkle as we describe our own journey. For me it was all about the flying and there are few places anyone can experience the type of flying we did than in the RAF. I'm pretty sure that many aspiring pilots will feel the same. Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though. |
Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though LJ |
Apart from the fact the majority of people who have served in the Armed Forces leave at or around the 5 year point.
|
Alfred
I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%. There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point. So in the spirit of the greatest conspiracy theories, it is suggested that the perceived erosion of terms and conditions has been done in a targetted manner in order to reduce the pension burden. :cool: "Get 'em in while they're keen, use them while they're young and then get 'em out before they cost too much" - sounds like a manning strategy to me! :ok: LJ |
There are only HUGE savings to be made if it costs little to train your pers. This is generally not the case for technical forces of the modern era.
False economy. "Different budget" springs to mind. |
But the NEM is not about saving money. Really?
|
Marly
But if you're going to lose them at 16-24 years anyway and if you make things so bad that the initial enthusiasm wanes at 12-15 years then that could be the strategy? Yes, the churn has happened slightly earlier. Also, don't forget that those on 16 year AFPS75 pensions are dwindling fast - the last will be past that point in 2020. So holding out for 18, 20 and 22 will be required for an early departure payment. This is complete guess-work on my part, but just like NEM not being a cost-saving exercise, it does all seem to point to a strategy that saves money in the longer term. LJ |
I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%. There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point. A kid straight out of school won't have the experience, skill set, knowledge and more importantly these days... the auths to get an ac serviceable when you need it. Bear in mind when kids leave Cosford they're still not auth'd / qualified, especially to work on Typhoon. It's the difference between spending all night looking at a fault, chasing your tail and the ac still U/S after the shift has ended and an experienced guy having seen the fault before and knows how best to fix it. |
Late reply to jayc530:
Thanks for the info on the IBN (64?). I have read through this and also spoken to PSF, it appears that things have been delayed (no surprise there) and that the offers for an additional 2 years service will be going out in Feb 15 and I am out in Jan 15..... So I will not be in the time frame- a bit annoying as I feel that I still have a lot of experience and knowledge to offer the Service. But, c'est la vie. |
I think there is another way to look at this: don't invest your training in those who will leave at the 5 year point. If someone has stayed in past there, they become part of a "long tail" that heads to 20+ years. Therefore start the investment (i.e. the serious stuff) at year 6, with an associated ROS/inducement factor.
|
The RAF techies who received their llicences on Future Tanker were obliged to stay in for five years after they gained them......that five year point is nearly up.....The figures for how many bang out from that initial lot will make interesting reading. ...
|
From a flyer on the latest of the Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review:
The SDSR 10 established a future RAF front-line smaller, but more capable, than the RAF of 2010. This means that in the 2020s and beyond there will not be enough experienced officer aircrew available to fill all of the ground jobs that they have historically filled. The Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review (OASR) examined, in consultation with job holders and the non-flying Branch Sponsors, how many and which ground jobs the reduced number of Regular officer aircrew could fill in the future. The Review recommended that the other jobs be transferred to either a non-flying Branch or the Reserves. The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines. This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future. A further review of which Flying Branch posts, both flying and ground, could be transferred to the Reserves or deleted will be conducted in 2015. More recent OASR work has identified that the number of pilots and WSO’s being trained is insufficient to provide experienced junior-officer aircrew to fill some of the non front-line flying jobs such as flying instructors and loan-service aircrew. In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break. Moreover there is a risk that the reduced number of junior officer pilots and WSO’s could restrict the RAF’s ability to expand or to extend its front-line flying capabilities at short notice. Consequently, the need for aircrew to fill non front-line posts is being reviewed to ensure that appropriate priority is focused on filling the front-line flying posts. The Flying Branch is facing significant challenges; Air Sec’s team is focussed on ensuring that the RAF has a capable and resilient Flying Branch fit for the future. LJ |
The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines. This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future iRaven |
Leon, that carp reads as though the RAF is just contracting by 10% from 1970 levels.
God help us all! OAP |
Oh deary me,
How sad. What am I missing? What don't our airships get? Don't they recognise that those in aviation need the non-frontline jobs for a rest, not back to back tours? Especially when the quality of life, TACOS and family life are being eroded. Don't the MoD and airships recognise that those in aviation have been doing the extra mile (well in excess of any X factor) for over 13 years? In the full knowledge that because of 'our' own policies good quality and experienced people are leaving, we are just going to open the cheaper recruiting and training pipeline to put (inexperienced/less qualified) bums on seats. Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies. |
In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break. :mad: |
Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies. Someone had a post on this thread (I think, but I can't find it), that pay should be increased "to industry rates, with X Factor on top, and OOAs reduced". This line of thinking sounds a bit like the protests about paying feeding charges back in the day - you know, that it was unfair for someone to pay 7 days a week for food when they only had Monday Lunch to Thursday Dinner, and ate at home for the rest of the time. So they introduced PAYD, so that you were only charged for the food you ate. And everyone complained about the awful quality of the Food and the appalling service - but you got exactly what you asked for, forgetting that the 3 days worth of food you weren't eating cross-subsidised the 4 you were eating. If you ask for Industry standard levels of pay, expect to get treated like an Industrial workforce. If the comments on PPRUNE are anything to go by, that means little to no training for free, limited pension or medical provision, an expectation that you'll go where you're told, when you're told; but balanced by relatively high "take home" wages. Sometimes I think our noses are in danger of our facial spite..... *Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up. |
*Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up. Forgive me, what's the historical precedent for being unable to win small wars and yet still being able to win 'the big one'? |
F3WMB - we have to ignore the elephant, otherwise we'd all be disbanded. And I don't believe in the "a big boy (i.e. the Politicians and CDS/COS') made me do it and ran away" theory - all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.
|
That's my point though; once the primary mission is ignored, every other idiotic change 'makes sense'.
Taking the long view, the only valid mechanism possessed by anyone in uniform is resignation in the face of idiotic commands. Some people have mouths to feed, what's everybody else's excuse? And yes, all my reasons for PVRing have come true, nor was I the only one who 'told you so'. |
all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK. Anyway, define "loss" in context of these Ops. We lost a lot of people but less than the EFs, we stopped the Taliban from trg/executing a major global terrorist nightmare during our 8 years of 'peace keeping', many of the children (including a massive amount of girls) are now being educated, the ANSF are now capable of holding a semblance of order, etc... Alright, the Taliban were not defeated, but neither were we - so at worst it is a 'score draw' in my opinion. If we knew the desired end-states of TELIC and HERRICK at the start then we might be able to claim loss, draw or victory! The B Word |
If we knew the desired end-states of TELIC and HERRICK at the start Current British Defence Doctrine http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc/...es/jdp0-01.pdf or perhaps more accurately, British Defence Policy is now (INTENTIONALLY BLANK) |
And I don't believe in the "a big boy (i.e. the Politicians and CDS/COS') made me do it and ran away" theory Was it CDS who sexed up the dodgy dossier? Was it CAS who was attached to Dubya's ar$e throughout 2001-2003? Was it the chief loggie who refused to allow the armed forces to conduct appropriate pre-deployment training and post-conflict reconstruction? I think you will find that these particular gems sit squarely in ZANU-Labour's lap. all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK. I suppose our colonial record in Afghanistan from the 19th century to today is all the fault of the Army and RAF, and nothing at all to do with Whitehall's utter failure to ever fully understand the region. And nothing to do with their constant willingness to send us into a badly-planned, unwinnable sh!tstorm every time!!:ugh: |
Slowly transferring 'appropriate jobs' to non-flying trades is at odds with the desire to 'expand its frontline capabilities at short notice'. Aside from the fact these tours are an excellent way to rest personnel between demanding flying tours they also act as a nice buffer to allow manning to flex the size of the frontline at short notice.
IMHO of course. If manning are listening then I can tell you that from my perspective (with me rapidly approaching my exit date), the only thing that will keep me in is a FRI. Like it or not, money talks, but I understand there is nothing left in the pot (although the MP's seem to have found some spare dosh to give themselves an inflation busting pay rise so there must be some around). |
I'm in Resettlement. I've not attained high rank, but I knew that would be the outcome of becoming SQEP in a number of off-piste areas (Acquisition/T&E) and shunning the ticket-punching route to high office. When I told Manning of my intention to leave I enquired why I'd boarded too low that year and was told I had "no USP". This was news having been told before that I was too specialised....Clearly the military is awash with Acquisition/T&E SQEP, if so, where are they? Those that were successful from my background had all carefully trodden the 'approved path', and had almost identical backgrounds/experience. You can't blame them for playing the game, and they are good blokes.
Now, I fully understand that there is a 'tariff system' in effect, but, and IMHO it's a biggie, given the historically tiny number of promotions currently occurring we are building in a layer of catastrophic 'group think' at SO1/OF5 level. People with essentially similar backgrounds, having punched the same 'high tarrif' posts, will perhaps struggle to think outside their own narrow 'swim lane'. The fanciful notion that 10mths at Shrivenham can paper over a gulf in knowledge is laughable when talking SQEP registered posts - you can't 'buy' or shortcut the E. The RAF has recently relied heavily on a cadre of SQEP Flt Lts and Sqn Ldrs to provide the E to help Senior decision making - these are the very people now walking out of the door. To paraphrase Boyd, the "Do-ers" are leaving; what are the "Be-ers" going to do for SQEP advice in the future? Answer-we'll just pay extortionate contractor rates to "buy back" lost experience or believe anything that QQ tell us. The military need a blend of 'generalists' and 'specialists' to remain balanced and effective. |
'Back in the Day', I thought that a 'Spec Rec' normally implied that one should be promoted at the next available opportunity....
Clearly not though - it took me 3 consecutive SRs before I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew - once described to me as 'the best rank in the air force'! The RAF has always seemed to be geared more towards looking after the 'chiefs' rather than the 'indians'. |
2 very valid posts there gentlemen, imho.:D
|
Very well said BEagle,
Throughout my 30 years I saw many cases of 'The System' pandering to discontented senior officers who threatened to PVR or complained about an unwanted posting. My service ended with my being posted (for what would in effect have been my final posting) from the fleet on which I had spent my entire career. The explanation was that I needed to be moved on to allow others to gain experience in my role. 2 years on and all those who were to gain that experience have left the Service! By the way, the best rank for the 21st century has to be PA Flt Lt......better paid than Spec Aircrew Sqn Ldr, better pension and no requirement to undertake Service Enquiries or the burgeoning number of OOA SO2 posts needed to fill the staffs of VSOs trying to get 'operational command experience' on their CVs. |
When the changes to flying pay were made about 5 years ago, a number of SO1 'any branch' posts suddenly became 'flying related', effectively filtering out a stream of post ACSC ground branch officers from higher air policy roles. Many of the issues dealt with were about sustaining air power along the Defence Lines of Development Rather than specific issues of operating aircraft or employing kinetic effect.
Isn't interesting the change a few years brings... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.