Could be the Last,

Lots of people from all kinds of backgrounds informed the debate. The, so called, decision loop took place way above that level. Decisions way above anyone that was looking for a place on Voyager. You may know something I don't about this. If you do, inform the debate with that. Like who did what you claim?

Totally understand. And all of those tasks could be performed by an experienced WSOp.

Forget the badge, you just need someone with the requisite experience of mission/sensor managing.

Just to clarify. I was talking about more than P8 and the POTENTIAL of a buy of this airframe will only make the situation worse.

For what its worth I've seen quite a few FJ Navs re-role into E3, R1, VC10, MQ-9, C130, Sentinel, Shadow and PR9 by just doing an OCU. The other way around for ME Navs, NCA and other rear crew normally involved at least a cross-over or a full-on Nav course to sit in the boot of a FJ OCU. I remember they trialled a Fighter Controller and a couple of AEOs on F3 in the 90s with a total failure of the course. So they obviously taught something at Finningley/Cranwell that the others just did not get.

Finally, throwing a pilot in the boot and expecting them to 'cope', BV, is not going to work. I've seen experienced QWIs/QFIs have a pretty torrid time in the boot on the simplest missions due to their lack of familiarity. I also know a few Navs that passed a 'dual check' in the front seat of a F3 but their close formation was dreadful - again due to a lack of familiarity with that particular exercise, but could fly an instrument approach to a good standard.

Horses for courses?

LJ

I'm sorry LJ I think I've missed something somewhere.

So apart from Flight Deck Navs on 2 current ISR platforms and GR4 Navs (OSD 2019), where are all these posts that require filling? Because I'm under the impression that all other rear crew seats are currently any flavour WSO/WSOp.

Mentioned before, the man from Barnwood (1989) asked the question at the MOD Navigation Training sub-committee, "what is the long term future of the navigator branch,?"

It was becoming obvious 25 years ago that fewer would be needed. The nub therefore was 'when'. What is now apparent, and was really apparent when training stopped, is that they stopped too soon.

With a GR4 OSD. of 2025 a new nav could have expected a full flying career to the 38/16 option point. Older navs could serve to 55 so job done and training could stop.

Of course that ignored the fact that navs could PVR too.

Once the sextant and LORAN C were taken out and I no longer had to collect a chicken from in-flight catering to sacrifice before three star astro shots, I developed the role into 'crew entertainments officer' and organised the knobbly knees contests on the flight deck and games of quoits in the freight bay for the first-class passengers.

I read it today in an IBN:

"Extensions in the use of certain air platforms have disrupted forward planning for the WSO cadre; this requires stabilising."

"OF2 WSO manning levels are taut."

"The increased manpower footprint required to support certain air platforms has brought WSO manning levels under close scrutiny. In order to ensure continued operational output and to stabilise forward planning for the WSO cadre, an increase in minimum waiting time from 6 to 12 months is required. This change was discussed and agreed by all parties at the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel held at Air Command on 15 Apr 15"

So I guess that the situation described by GGII of "all these posts that need filling" has been warranted the IBN and this action from Manning? :hmm:

The phrase 'porked it' comes to mind and thus the recent Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review and the shedding of traditional aircrew jobs to non-aircrew serves to give a somewhat bleak outlook. Furthermore, I notice that the most recent MAA External Audit Panel (MEAP) has reported on the difficulty in getting Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) into the required MAA posts that has made for significant comment in the MEAP2014 report.

So, yes, I think that WSO training was turned off too early. I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2. So the use of other WSO/WSOp to do the traditional staff tours that Navs had done previously has probably worsened the situation as some rear-crew are less 'aircraft flyers' and more 'kit operators' in certain key posts that require experience with specific flying, safety and regulation backgrounds that some WSO/WSOps just don't have.

IMHO of course...:ok:

LJ

God help those currently serving. Anyone able to tell me what that load of random, made-up words actually means?

Maybe budget cuts are no longer the major threat to the UK's armed forces.

[QUOTE=Leon Jabachjabicz;9006234

I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2.

LJ[/QUOTE]

And where might I add does the average OF-2 learn how to do 'quality' staff work?

9 months at Sleaford Tech and JOD certainly don't do much in the way of staff training.

Any MAcr could fulfil an OF-2 post in his sleep.

Shortage of Navs
 

LJ.

You will see that I very deliberately said GR4. I had never suggested it would work in the F3. The point is moot though since I have already conceded.

However, since all I ever hear from GR4 mates is that they hardly have any serviceable airframes when at home base I had based my suggestion on this bleak picture. Maybe that was embellishment on their behalf.

Still firmly in my box though.

BV

LJ

Thanks, your last paragraph helps me understand your thinking on the subject.

I will not comment further as my 'Baldrick' like lack of experience or proper training make make me incapable of an analytical reply.

p.s. In Private Plane (s4e4) isn't Baldrick the Nav?

MAD Boom

Are you having a bit of a class war moment?


I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.

Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.

It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.


If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.

Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.

I suffered much "Why does it have to be an officer - NCA could do your job" in the back of the E-3. My answer was - and remains - "if you believe that you can do the job and want to do the job then apply for a commission". It is surprizing how many wanted the job but were not prepared to accept the added responsibility that went with it!

Tourist - it's the standard NCO vs officer diatribe that one gets in the RAF. 'Navigators always get lost, are only there to carry the bags' vs 'Salt of the earth, only people on the ac who work hard'. It gets really testing (especially as I once spent 2 years as the only navigator on a sqn of pilots and crewmen), but you get used to it. One of the reasons why the crew room became a place to avoid.

You're very correct!

What a wonderful example of staff-speak wanquewords!

When a certain air force was about to introduce tankers into service, they initially decided that an 'operator' would suffice. So they did a trial; one chap did OK, the others didn't. Then the aircraft was fitted with a mission system - it was clear that the person operating it needed an air navigation background. So they changed their minds and used ex-Tornado and (a few) ex-F4 WSOs, who had sufficient capacity to offload some of the tasks more normally the responsibility of the pilots, such as formation management. That worked very well and the 3-person environment has enabled them to gain high respect for their work from NATO allies.

Their colleagues in another country with the same aircraft decided to use ex-C130 navs; again, that went OK but their pilots do more of the formation control etc. They also have the respect of NATO allies.

So when another air force was about to introduce a 3-person tanker, they were advised that at least 3 other nations had tried to use ALMs etc. for the task and that hadn't been successful. But no, they decided that they had to know better.....

The reason? To save on salary costs....:rolleyes: I gather that the decision is now being reviewed.

Wensleydale wrote: As one of our QFI captains once said to an air engineer (holder of a PPL) who kept badgering him to allow him to try landing a VC10. "Certainly, no problem. But first you have to apply for a commission, then you have to pass Cranwell, BFTS and AFTS, then if you are selected for the VC10, pass the OCU groundschool and simulator sessions. Then I'll let you try a landing!"

Why do 'manning' not listen to the opinions of those with experience in the roles in question? Too often they just seemed to want to justify the ar$e decision of some thrusting SO/VSO who wouldn't listen to reason....:ugh:

Tourist

I can see your viewpoint and respect your opinion, but we 'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I wasn't referring to the 'average' NCA, but the MAcr cadre who I have the privilege to work with every day. I wouldn't describe any one of them as average.

MAD

I have also worked with MAcr.

They were frankly excellent.

Excellent at their role.

Their role was specialised. That is the point.

None of them pretended otherwise.

A lot of RN observers are ex aircrewmen. A lot of them are mates of mine. Many have said something along the lines of "I kept sitting alongside this Officer who seemed to have an easier job than me so I thought I'd give it a go"

Most of those good enough to be given the chance pass BOC. Very few of them have quite the same opinion of how easy the Officers job is afterwards.

A good NAV WSO Observer may make it look easy, but that doesn't mean it is.

This thread has gone down a predicable path that I bet any O or SNCO from a Battle of Britian or a Bomber Offensive Sqn would recognise. However, back to now, we are becoming (in terms of aircrew at least) a 'pilot centric airforce' where the requirements for the Nav specelisation will become very soon, very niche.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the WSO tasks that remain (even if/when P8 arrives) should become SNCO posts. The right people will be selected from the ranks of WSOps to become Os.

Now the only other issue is the claim that a non Nav WSO is not as broad an O as a Nav, that surely, just as with Navs is purely on the individuals experience and ability, any other attitude is now as relervent as Sight Reduction Tables.

Well said Tourist. The RAF gave up Nav/WSO training because there was no justification for keeping it going given the OSDs of Nav/WSO capable aircraft. There is no way (in my opinion) that a restart of the RAF Nav cadre could be justified if (and only if) the MPA role is reinstated. As an ex "Manner" such a small cadre would not be sustainable in career terms. So, if officer back seaters are required they will have to be supplied by the RN FAA, who can offer a full career structure to the Observer cadre.

For CM re compensating reductions (or not). This is the role of SDSR. If MoD want to reintroduce the capability it will either be at the expense of something else or they will have to convince the Treasury to agree to an uplift in manpower. I am sure a similar arguement has/is been going on re manning the 2nd QE class after the PM announced, and continues to announce, we would run both. I suspect an RN uplift in manpower is in the offing in SDSR, possibly at the expense of the other 2 Services.

Bismarck / Tourist

The RAF has stopped Nav training, it hasn't stopped commissioning WSOs

Circle

Really?

Now that 55 is gone, where are they training them?

I will try not to give too much away. I have served as NCA and as an officer flying a number of aircraft. There is a load of s#### being spouted by people who have no idea. It is all about the professional and personal qualities irrespective of rank. If you have those qualities and are given the appropriate level of training, then there is a good chance you will get the highly skilled operator you require.

So can WSOps or pilots occupy the 'boot' of the mighty Fin?

Of course they can as long as one heeds the advice in my first paragraph.

Good luck to all and yes I am glad the 'war is over' for me!

// track

Tourist,

I'm very surprised someone as apparently well informed as you didn't know WSOs were still being commissioned and I'm sure that you know all rear crew training is now the responsibility of 45(R) Sqn. With, in the future, big help from 750 NAS for WSOp sensor.

But that's not the point your trying to make is it, your point is the RAF has no way of training WSOs from civvy Street. My point is it doesn't have to.

This thread originally started out discussing the shortage of Navs, apparently mainly on the Tornado fleet.

What's the solution? Simple, work the few you have left harder, make them do back to back detachments, stop them PVRing (already being done), don't allow them any time off for personal or professional development, AT, etc....

Finally, when the Tornado fleet does start to fold and you don't need them any more, make them redundant under the rules introduced by the NEM as thanks for their efforts.

Isn't that what the RAF (sorry, didn't mean to be biased), no MOD, normally do in this sort of situation?











As an aside, I don't care if it's WSOps who can wlak on water becoming WSOs, or recruiting WSOs off the high street for the RN to train, you aren't going to put anyone without prior experience into the back seat of a GR4 to go on operations very quickly. Best hope the SDSR solves the problem for you - it normally does......

Did I detect a little bile in your post, Biggus?

CM,

Nope - just realism, pragmatism, and having watched something similar happen with another trade a few years ago....





Anyway, at least it might stop the O's and NCO's from telling each other how good they are for a while. But don't bet on it!!

I was pilloried some years ago when I mentioned airman tendencies in officer candidates. I think this thread epitomizes that. While some NCA have all the attributes for commissioned service (I know one AEOp who made Air Cdre) there are many that do not but may think they do. Remember many were rejected at OASC and offered NCA.

Staff work was mentioned, your lowliest JO is exposed to different and varied staff work by means of jobs pushed their way. Responsibilities are different and officers often have to act on their own when NCA, in the broader sphere do not.

I served with many superb NCA some of whom could have been commissioned and some, despite their own assessment never, Wenselydale may know of whom I am thinking.

Mention of officer and NCA in WW2 is a red herring as societal norms played a large part in initial appointments with commissioning quickly following upon performance.

^^

I knew quite a few NCA that would have been unsuitable for a commission.
I knew way more officers that would have been unsuitable for NCA.

You're a bit out of touch there PN - that changed a great deal 10-15 years ago.

I would second that. The RAF is vastly different compared to how it was, mostly due to increased workload and fewer personnel. Being involved in almost constant Ops helps to broaden the mind and also helps to raise experience levels compared to service in previous decades.

One only has to look at the number of FS who regularly stand in for Sqn Ldrs at short notice without batting an eyelid.

One also has to look at the number of NCA who, although sailing through OASC, are unsuccessful or unsuitable for pilot. Most have been or were offered Commissions in another branch. Almost all refuse and opt for NCA.

Of those who later re-apply for a Commission, I am yet to meet one who is unsuccessful.

I did hear a story of one particular ex-NCA Officer Candidate who was backsquadded due to having too many SNCO qualities. Said person's ex colleagues remarked that it was a shame that the individual chose ITC to display previously unseen qualities!

This thread has slightly lost its way. The RAF is running short of Navs for the Tornado fleet. The sausage factory was closed too early and that was very short-sighted, especially with the threat of extending yet another airframe. There are a lot of guys there with masses of experience, many of whom are content to serve out their days in the cockpit. Beyond that, Manning has a problem.

The other side of the coin is the multi-engine/helo world where WSOps, in their various guises are still being trained. That will, with any luck, soon include P-8. In that area, the RAF is not short of WSOps, has a supply line and, recruiting permitting, would be able cover the required 'footprint'.

So, to go back to the OP, yep, short of navs. Navs only required now for Tornado. Tornado's days may well be in the balance. The Chancellor may have noticed that his shiny Typhoon jets are getting pretty good at air-to-ground. That's a worrying thought.

P-8 potential buy (God, I hope so), WSOps required, 45 Sqn doing the training and a good number of guys in "seed corn" posts in the States, where the UK's LRMPA expertise currently rests.

So, is there a problem? Yes, for the Tornado. For helo and multi WSOps, No.

Apologies CM

I contributed to this thread losing its way.

I agree entirely with your accurate post.

Toadstool, sorry, my point was not aimed at you. But I'm glad you posted because it highlights the two, distinct discussions here.

Your post was a good response to the NCA/Officer Aircrew debate. My post is about rear crew manning in RAF fleets in the coming years. Both worthwhile discussion and, hey, thread drift in PPRuNe leads to some of the best discussions.

:ok:

TOFO, Despite my age I am not that far out of touch having only retired 5 years ago.

TS, I can't disagree, certainly FS and MACR can certainly do the roles, but not all.

My last FS was very professional but lacking in other ways. His predecessor should have been an officer but was happy where he was and didn't want a warrant.

Now a previous FS, also TG9, was brilliant as a Sim Controller but I don't think he would have been happy with a commission.

I guess the bottom line is do those NCA, suitable for a commission, actually want a commission? Even if commissioned, or not, could they be retrained in a wholly different role?

PN

In what ways? Genuine question....

Again, the RAF is not flush with WSOPs. Too many were redunded, recruiting is slow, and the sensor pipeline is only now sputtering into life for the first time since I and others closed it down in 2010. Even if another ISR fleet is chopped through SDSR, it will still be a stretch to man 5? 8? 12? P-8 (according to various rumours here)
That aircraft needs 4 WSOp (and a WSO bien sur) per crew. Sentinel Shadow or Reaper need 1 each. Maybe if all 3 fleets go, we could man the P-8.

PN

Your 2 examples of NCA suitability for commissioning are both TG9 FS Sim Controlers, on E3D I assume, not sure I follow your argument.

Camel,

The purchase of P-8 will take time. Plenty of time to ramp up to meet the demand. The RAF training pipeline has a reputation for being hard to manage. I'm know, I used to be SO1 Trg at HQ 1Gp. That reputation came from the difficult days of the PILOT pipeline that fell victim to an unprecedented series of cuts and other external factors - I'm not trying to defend it, I didn't run it.

The WSOp training "pipeline" is nowhere near as complicated and nowhere near as long. Therefore it can react far more quickly to demand. Remember, the P-8 purchase is still a rumour. Would you imagine that the MoD et al aren't, right now, trying to work out what they are going to do and what they might lose in SDSR should this be a viable project?

Just because you and others closed it down at a time when there was a lower demand, doesn't mean it can't be ramped up now. Actually, it already is, as you stated. Maybe you didn't shut it down properly.

Again, I suggest you read my posts #8 and #17. Look at the bit about RAF folk doing this job in the US of A.

I too hope training can be ramped up quickly, but I dont think the projected 4 Sensor operators through training this FY are going to make much difference. Also the 2 crews worth in the US would make a great start to the fleet - IF they all come back. Instructors in the US are being poached by contractors for megabucks wages - 2,3,4 times military salaries. I wouldn't look such a gift horse in the mouth, and I know at least 1 seed-corn flyer who went to the States with the express long-term intent on moving on into industry over there.

Except it WAS shut down, and all equipment scrapped. Gone. No more.

The training being done now is being outsourced.

You want to renew the mpa fleet? Then it is going to cost. The RAF has lost its WSOp training capability. There will be no "ramping up". The current output will barely support the current under manned fleets. Be under no illusion, the 55 Sqn output standard of old is going to be a challenge to renew, without significant investment. However, there are good guys on 45 trying their best with what they have.

Having said that, if p8 is an option then the full support package will of course be taken into account. I hope!

Courtney Mil,

Ref your post #70, you are absolutely right.

Everyone at the coalface advised some years ago against shutting down the nav training line based on the then projected squadron numbers/aircraft OSDs, as historically things tend to "run on".

Funny old thing, we now have an "extra" GR4 squadron running on and, surprise, surprise, the RAF is now short of FJ navs, never mind trying to crew a possible(?) P8 fleet.

The Marham GR4 squadrons are so depleted of navs compared to pilots, that the most common cause of sim slots being cancelled is - no nav available.

It will only get worse - I am so glad I am now an observer from the outside!