Reduction in numbers without changing the rank structure

[Meathead]

In one of those boring moments when you actually have nothing better to do.....I started musing over the fact that when i joined we were 100,000 (give or take) strong. Now with manpower figures around 40,000 why do we retain so many ranks, AND in the structure they are?

LAC rank is a complete waste of a trip to the tailors as most people only hold the rank for a couple of months at most

FS just seems to be a filler between Sgt and WO (No offence to FS'S!, The last couple I have had have been tea b1tches to sqn ldrs)

Do Sqn Ldrs command Squadrons? Do Wg Cdrs command Wings.....umm??

and just for kicks...do we really need 400 odd Group Captains?


It seems to me that although we have 'tried to work better with less' the fact that we have 19 levels of management does not allow us 'to work better', but rather hinders us as each rank has to have to have their twopence worth

Would a national company with 40000 employees have 19 levels of management?? I think not.

Whilst im sure that this type of issue has come up before, probably in the lean thread, does anyone have any ideas on how we could improve the structure?? (Without turning the thread into an officer baiting session?)

 

[DrunkenMonki]

Drop LAC completely. Use SAC as a form of Lance Corporal promotion, otherwise below Cpl you are an AC. Saves on badge swapping and means SAC might mean something!

Drop Chief Tech rank completely, not too sure on this one though, might mean that FS's just end up doing chief tech jobs, saving nothing!

Squadron leader to command sqn blah blah. Stop automatic promotion to F/L.

 

[MrMasher]

How about turning the pyramid upside down back to the way it should be?
More workers for the increased workload and more junior management to actually supervise the workers.
Bin off loads of air ranks, all they seem to do is conflict each other with their hare brained schemes.

 

[The Dog's]

In one of those boring moments when you actually have nothing better to do.....I started musing over the fact that when i joined we were 100,000 (give or take) strong. Now with manpower figures around 40,000 why do we retain so many ranks, AND in the structure they are?

LAC rank is a complete waste of a trip to the tailors as most people only hold the rank for a couple of months at most

FS just seems to be a filler between Sgt and WO (No offence to FS'S!, The last couple I have had have been tea b1tches to sqn ldrs)

Do Sqn Ldrs command Squadrons? Do Wg Cdrs command Wings.....umm??

and just for kicks...do we really need 400 odd Group Captains?


It seems to me that although we have 'tried to work better with less' the fact that we have 19 levels of management does not allow us 'to work better', but rather hinders us as each rank has to have to have their twopence worth

Would a national company with 40000 employees have 19 levels of management?? I think not.

Whilst im sure that this type of issue has come up before, probably in the lean thread, does anyone have any ideas on how we could improve the structure?? (Without turning the thread into an officer baiting session?)

One of the main reasons for so many ranks in the system is that it needs to support two different career structures ie commissioned and non-commissioned. Having more ranks than levels of command necessarily creates rank overlap which occuring most notably at the enlisted/officer boundary, but also within the enlisted structure itself. One way to solve it (popular amongst enlisted, but ruled out by most officers) is to join the enlisted/officer struture together so that progession from one to the other proceeds naturally rather than having to seek selection (provided the criteria for promotion are satisfied of course). There has been some drip feeding of WO straight to Flt Lt without knocking however. The problem with this scheme, if it became the norm, would be that it assumes everybody starts from the bottom. This would be unacceptable for pilots/navs and other professionally qualified entrants so you would need to start them several ranks up as they now do. The system works better for the police where everybody starts at the bottom as a beat copper because they don't have the range of careers that the forces have.

With or without a conjoined structure I think there is scope for pruning the enlisted rank structure without upsetting the career path. The chf tech argument has been rumbling on ever since the '60s and how it was an artificial rank to slow up promotion in the techie trades. As time promotion has long gone it's not now an issue. Should it have gone? I'm not gonna get into that argument, suffice to say they created a lot of higher paid JTs (cpls) and sgts who thought they were snco's, but hey! we techies made a lot of money out of it so WTF! The peverse thing is that chf tech and FS are both OR-7 in the Nato rank structure, there being no OR-8 which the Navy addressed a few years ago by making their charge chiefs WO2. Anyway, should there ever be large scale integration of the 3 sevices (which they promise us will never happen, yeah right!) you might expect to see drastic streamlining of ranks cos they need to save loadsa money to keep the whole thing running.

 

[wobbly]

Apparently we have more Group Captains than propulsion tradesmen these days

As for the rank of Flight Sergeant being a filler between Sergeant and Warrant Officer, couldn't you say that Corporal is the filler between SAC/JT to Sergeant?

The Flight Sergeant rank is at shift level whereas the Warrant rank is usually at section level. What do you suggest? You bin the rank of Flight Sergeant thus severely reducing Sergeant promotion? On the other hand you could premote loads of Sergeants into Warrant Officer slots and drag the Warrants back as head SNCO on shift......that would go down well like chilli powdered gloves in a sperm donar centre and dilute the ranks status in my opinion.

The rank of Flight Sergeant is crucial to the every day running of a shift.

 

[The Masked Geek]

This would be unacceptable for pilots/navs and other professionally qualified entrants so you would need to start them several ranks up as they now do.

You don't need to be an officer to fly a plane old chap. DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[firestorm]

.........or why not go the whole hog and get rid of ranks all together and just have roles. Very modern. (Complete abortion).
Embrace the future!:S

 

[Douglas Bader's Right Leg]

I agree with the abolition of timed promotion to FLt Lt (now that I am one!) and also think that we should be more careful about the awarding of Permanent Commissions - too many chimps are guaranteed 40k per year until age 38. And stop commissioning aircrew.

 

[The Dog's]

You don't need to be an officer to fly a plane old chap. DT_Xtremez_30:

Quite true old boy, but look at the status of pilots in the wider community. You will find they are on a par with professionally qualified people. If they weren't given the status and pay the RAF wouldn't get a good quality pool to pick from to train as pilots, and those that did, would leave the RAF in droves for a better paid career in civil aviation at the earliest opportunity. The retention problem is already bad enough as it is.

 

[Douglas Bader's Right Leg]

Quite true old boy, but look at the status of pilots in the wider community. You will find they are on a par with professionally qualified people. If they weren't given the status and pay the RAF wouldn't get a good quality pool to pick from to train as pilots, and those that did, would leave the RAF in droves for a better paid career in civil aviation at the earliest opportunity. The retention problem is already bad enough as it is.

There is a difference between pay and rank. If you want to fly and lead then you join up as an officer, if you just want to fly then join up as a SNCO. What you get paid is relatively inconsequential, what matters is that at the moment a very large number of our commissioned officers have negligible experience of leading the rank and file of the RAF and these men go on to become our most senior commanders.

 

[The Dog's]

There is a difference between pay and rank.

Hmmm, last time I looked there was a strong correlation between the two.

If you want to fly and lead then you join up as an officer, if you just want to fly then join up as a SNCO.

Yeah that's how it should work, but just remind me who a Typhoon F2 pilot is supposed to lead? In reality, it comes down to what job you want to do as aircrew. Whether you end up with rings or chevrons is not really of consequence. I teach both WSOp and WSO and would say that many of them are interchangeable.

What you get paid is relatively inconsequential,

I would completely disagree.

at the moment a very large number of our commissioned officers have negligible experience of leading the rank and file of the RAF and these men go on to become our most senior commanders.

Hits nail on head.

 

[3wheeledtechie]

a very large number of our commissioned officers have negligible experience of leading the rank and file of the RAF and these men go on to become our most senior commanders

That is so true. If pilots joined up as either NCO or commissioned aircrew, it would give the commissioned ones early command experience, restore the balance, and also I doubt many would pass up the chance to fly just because they were going to miss out on commissioned status (which they could always apply for at a later stage in their career). There simply is no justification for a pilot to have to have a commission, in fact there is a significant argument that it is better to recruit them younger, straight from school, which then puts them at a disadvantage later in their career in the officer world, by virtue of not being a graduate.

 

[mememe]

I think we are at risk of crediting our commissioned brethren with the idea that most, if not all are actually leaders!! Make no mistake, just because they have successfully completed Cranwell does not entitle them to be "leaders" by default. An example of this is doctors/nursing officers who actually have the misconception they can lead, and at a push, manage. They go through SERE at Cranwell, knife/fork/spoon course and the Service will automatically commission them because of their qualifications.
A lot has been said about "professionally trained" well, I thought we all were, so what gives certain professionally trained, pilots/navs etc. the god given right to start several levels above other professionally trained personnel?

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

You don't need to be an officer to fly a plane old chap. DT_Xtremez_30:

I think you will find that QRs mention the need to hold a commission to interpret ROE on airborne platforms! The AAC do have SNCO pilots on AH47s but the gunner is commissioned.

As most combat aircraft are single seat then the commissioned pilots are here to stay I'm afraid.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Can't take credit for this, but a guy I used to work with at Buchan - when his dad retired as a WO a few years back wrote a cracking letter to RAF News comparing the rank structure of 2ATAF at the end of WW2 and it's structure just as it was being wound up. Back in '45 Sqn Ldrs did lead squadrons and Wg Cdrs led wings. The letter was amazing and I wish I had kept a copy.

I did some research on the old Servicing Commandos (for a staff ride I went on) and a team back then would be commanded by a Flt Lt or Fg Off (Eng officer) with a Plt Off to do the admin and pay. The rest were SNCOs, JNCOs and some ACs.

What amazes me is on dets and OOA you seem to get a better structure, because lets face it we shouln't be padding establishments just for the hell of it and somebody twiddling his/her thumbs for 4 to 6 months is demoralising to say the least. But back in the UK officers seem so reluctant to let SNCOs do what they know best! Run a section.

The only exception I have come across was last year, over a beer with the SNCO Eng at a certain mountain site the 2 of us were chatting and agreed there was one post that could disappear - the FS Det Cdr...

I have met a great many brilliant TG3 guys over the years I have been a scopie, he was a complete waste of space but you can't paint all FSs with the same brush...

 

[Dave-exfairy]

I think you will find that QRs mention the need to hold a commission to interpret ROE on airborne platforms! The AAC do have SNCO pilots on AH47s but the gunner is commissioned.

As most combat aircraft are single seat then the commissioned pilots are here to stay I'm afraid.

QR's can be changed. The RAF had NCO pilots/navs for many years, most were Volunteer Reserves, they stopped NCO pilots/navs when the jet age came about, more due to snobbery than anything else, can't trust the oiks and all that.
There was talk in the mid 90's about bringing back NCO pilots/navs but that was halted. You don't have to be commissioned to understand ROE, some of the best guys I knew in the RAF were NCO's and whilst I met a good amount of excellent officers, there were an awful lot whom I wouldn't trust to punch their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[kevin999s]

I think we are at risk of crediting our commissioned brethren with the idea that most, if not all are actually leaders!! Make no mistake, just because they have successfully completed Cranwell does not entitle them to be "leaders" by default. An example of this is doctors/nursing officers who actually have the misconception they can lead, and at a push, manage. They go through SERE at Cranwell, knife/fork/spoon course and the Service will automatically commission them because of their qualifications.A lot has been said about "professionally trained" well, I thought we all were, so what gives certain professionally trained, pilots/navs etc. the god given right to start several levels above other professionally trained personnel?

I thought going through Cranwell successfully meant you were a leader by default? This is regardless of branch.

I can't defend the doc's here, but not all nurses go through Cranwell when they join up, a significant amount join as Junior ranks. The reason they do get commissioned is to track their pay to a comparable level in civvy street upon their prior experience in civvy street, otherwise we'd get no-one to join up. Hopefully this will soon vanish as the RAF seem to be moving to a specialist pay spine for nurses away from rank, so the rank will reflect your military capability, but your pay will take into account your specialist qualifications.

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

QR's can be changed. The RAF had NCO pilots/navs for many years, most were Volunteer Reserves, they stopped NCO pilots/navs when the jet age came about, more due to snobbery than anything else, can't trust the oiks and all that.
There was talk in the mid 90's about bringing back NCO pilots/navs but that was halted. You don't have to be commissioned to understand ROE, some of the best guys I knew in the RAF were NCO's and whilst I met a good amount of excellent officers, there were an awful lot whom I wouldn't trust to punch their way out of a wet paper bag.

I agree that QRs can be changed but there is a lot of training goes to (commissioned) aircrew at the moment on ROE application. It is also why certain jobs on the E3 fleet have to be commissioned officers, there is legal accountability for their actions that the MoD feel is rightly placed at that level.

I know the ultimate arbiter of ROE is the soldier on the ground but can he cause as much damage with his 5.56 rifle as a Typhoon pilot with Brimstone/Stormshadow.

As a SNCO my job allows me to make ROE decisions daily but there is always a commissioned officer somewhere in the firing chain to cover my ample backside.

As for the jet age thing, I believe the decision to retain only commissioned piilots came from the fact that the UK had an independent nuclear deterrent rather than sporty aircraft.

Not saying I agree with it all, just stating the case as it stands now.

Originally Posted by kevin999s
I thought going through Cranwell successfully meant you were a leader by default? This is regardless of branch.

I can't defend the doc's here, but not all nurses go through Cranwell when they join up, a significant amount join as Junior ranks. The reason they do get commissioned is to track their pay to a comparable level in civvy street upon their prior experience in civvy street, otherwise we'd get no-one to join up. Hopefully this will soon vanish as the RAF seem to be moving to a specialist pay spine for nurses away from rank, so the rank will reflect your military capability, but your pay will take into account your specialist qualifications.

That is correct for Doctors, can you imagine a fully qualified GP joining on SAC wages? Also the rank gives them some clout around the station (in the same way as padres). They also don't carry out some duties associated with their rank on stations as the rank is merely a pay trigger.
__________________

 

[Odie]

Typhoon pilot with Brimstone/Stormshadow.

As a SNCO my job allows me to make ROE decisions daily but there is always a commissioned officer somewhere in the firing chain to cover my ample backside.

I guess there must be one holder of the Queen's Commission who'd do that. DT_Xtremez_30: It's just that I've yet to meet him. DT_Xtremez_37:

 

[mememe]

I thought going through Cranwell successfully meant you were a leader by default? This is regardless of branch.

I can't defend the doc's here, but not all nurses go through Cranwell when they join up, a significant amount join as Junior ranks. The reason they do get commissioned is to track their pay to a comparable level in civvy street upon their prior experience in civvy street, otherwise we'd get no-one to join up. Hopefully this will soon vanish as the RAF seem to be moving to a specialist pay spine for nurses away from rank, so the rank will reflect your military capability, but your pay will take into account your specialist qualifications.

Whilst I accept not all nurses go through Cranwell, therein lies the reason I put "nursing officer".
Are you serious or taking the p*** with the quote about successful completion of Cranwell meant you were a leader by default, regardless of branch.
Scenario..
Plt Off X - Follow me guys, I know what I am doing!
do I even need to type the reply?
Why the specialist pay spine? Comparable pay to civvy street. I think you will find the military nurse is paid considerably more than the civvy from the start, including going through training. Are they not in the higher band? Do less than their civilian conterpart (hence why they joined/couldn't hack the civvy world). Hide behind their professional body when asked to work a few hours extra. Forget they are military first, nurses second.
I concede, not all are like the above however, more are than less!