Who cares whether he said 5, 6 or 7. He is a very good SO who will hopefully get the top job when it comes around. I worked with him twice and I never saw him ill-prepared for anything!

//trk

I don't see what there was to "defend"; a question was asked and the answer deliberately misinterpreted for who-knows-what-purpose.

The object of these sessions is not to deceive the Committee, it is to provide them with facts and informed opinion.

Ms Moon was being a pedant and scoring cheap points in her first assertion that "we don't know how many aircraft we have". The decision to ignore that stupidity was wise - it probably wasn't the only jibe thrown - and they only go in one direction at these sessions.

To calmly correct her when she felt like repeating the bollox was exactly what was required.

Perhaps all candidates for military 'top jobs' should be required to sit an exam on facts, figures and capabilities. "You may turn over your question papers now, ladies and gentlemen"...

Invigilators all from the SWO cadre. No gonks allowed either.

6th RAF Typhoon squadron announced?
 

WW.
So would CASWO have known the answer if put on the spot in a similar fashion?
BV

Not CASWO's job.

6th RAF Typhoon squadron announced?
 

WW.
I'm sure you can see my point though. He was just the most senior SNCO I could think of.
BV

No, I don't see your point.

All an invigilator needs to do is walk up and down the exam hall making sure that none of those sitting it talk/cheat etc. Would need a second invigilator to escort any candidate wishing to go to the loo.

Technically, a WO is not a SNCO. Just sayin' :cool:

6th RAF Typhoon squadron announced?
 

WW.
It would appear I misunderstood the tone of your post then for which I apologise unreservedly.
BV

I was under the impression that the number in any given squadron on any given day was a bit of a movable feast in any case, but happy to stand corrected. FWIW I agree with those who say that he dealt with the MP's trolling comment pretty well, courteously and straight bat.

For those arguing that numbers of squadrons are unimportant compared with airframe numbers, in this instance a sixth sqn would imply the retention of some Tranche 1s, which has been talked about, so pushing airframe numbers beyond the 107 that there'll otherwise be after T1 OSD. Bearing in mind that in 2020 there are due to be just 6 front line FJ sqns in total, an increase of that kind could only be a good thing. And to repeat, he DID say there would be 6 Typhoon sqns in 2020. The written record has since been "corrected", either because he was wrong or because he shouldn't have said it.

OK. I accept that a VSO wouldn't normally be expected to know of such detail; especially when we had an Air Force of substance. But when said VSO, no matter how well thought of, is these days responsible for ONLY 5/6 squadrons of the type under discussion, when called before such a committee, he bloody well should!! Or is that too much to expect? For goodness sake.

The number of frames varies from day to day depending on a number of factors....how many are parked, off to depth, back from depth, long term U/S...it's largely a meaningless figure.

A more meaningful metric would be how many frames is the Sqn manned to fly and maintain. And that doesn't always meet the number allocated!

Quote:


OK. I accept that a VSO wouldn't normally be expected to know of such detail; especially when we had an Air Force of substance. But when said VSO, no matter how well thought of, is these days responsible for ONLY 5/6 squadrons of the type under discussion, when called before such a committee, he bloody well should!! Or is that too much to expect? For goodness sake.

But he is not responsible for them...

Hairs, splitting

Jindabyne,


I really don't think I am splitting hairs. If CAS was in front of the HCDC on the subject of current combat air capability I would have some sympathy for your view. When DCDS (Military Capability) is in front of them to discuss FF2020 I would be absolutely amazed if he knew definitively how many jets were on front line squadrons today. As a previous squadron and station commander I am certain that he could have made a very good estimate, but rightly didn't do that in front of the Defence Committee. I would have been disappointed if he had asked his staff to ask the front line commands the thousands of questions that he would have needed answering if he wanted the information the MPs shouldn't have been asking in the first place. You are entitled to think otherwise but I just don't agree with you.


LE

We have a similar pedigree; also alongside DASB in MoD. We'll have to agree to disagree:ok:

No need to apologise.

It just amused me to conjure the image of a bunch of VSOs sitting in silence in the gymnasium at High Wycome answering questions under exam conditions, with a couple of stiff-necked SWOs, pacing sticks at the ready, overseeing the whole process.

I suggest the acid test would be to sit Mrs Moon down under exam conditions to establish her level of understanding after the briefing. I hate to think how many hours have been wasted over the years by our politicians (remember: they work for you), asking pointless minutae, and in doing so missing the point completely and with it the parlous state of our military.