RAF manning 1990- now

[Sospan]

Thats a total of 181 stars!

 

[Craig855s]

This is ridiculous. I hope the SDR cut a greater percentage of officers than the non commisioned..

1 Grp captain per camp (some camps are run by ACs) and maybe a couple of others here and there to do jobs I personally don't know exist..

1 Wing Co per Sqn/Large section like BSWs and a few more here and there

and so on and so on, no-one can justify having 340 Grp Capts never mind the 26AVMs and son on

 

[TrickyTree]

One of the reasons presented for retaining such numbers of senior and air officers is that many serve in posts at NATO HQs, embassies, high commissions and the like. It is argued that these officers need the rank in order to be able to speak on level terms with their foreign contemporaries. Having recently served within JFH and seen the RN put people of high rank in post specifically so they can try to push us about a bit I can see some merit in the argument. It also seems to be an argument that is ignored in threads such as this - maybe this post will provoke debate of it.

In the end though, I have to say that as long as HM pays me every month I don't give a toss how many flag, general and air officers her ministers feel they need. Nothing I can do about it, and it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

 

[JPJ83]

Don't forget that "professionally qualified" officers will skew those figures significantly. It's dead easy for doctors, dentists, lawyers etc to end up at Wg Cdr / Gp Capt - and those branches are pretty significant.

 

[Stevienics]

One of the reasons presented for retaining such numbers of senior and air officers is that many serve in posts at NATO HQs, embassies, high commissions and the like. It is argued that these officers need the rank in order to be able to speak on level terms with their foreign contemporaries. Having recently served within JFH and seen the RN put people of high rank in post specifically so they can try to push us about a bit I can see some merit in the argument. It also seems to be an argument that is ignored in threads such as this - maybe this post will provoke debate of it.

Here's a debate:

1990 - Total 89680
Officers 15270 ----- 17.03%
Airmen 74410 ----- 82.97%

2010 - Total 44060
Officers 9830 ----- 22.31%
Airmen 34230 ----- 77.69%

Explain the change in the ratios in a contracting airforce.

Look I know it doesn't affect you because you get paid like everone else. But every superflous ring equates to one man doing the work that three real men could be employed to do, and I think we both know someone is padding it up here in a cyle of self preservation.

May be , may not be. Whats the harm in having someone open the books and have a look? If it's all kosher, then nothing to worry about. Right?

 

[AlienFB]

Here's a debate:

1990 - Total 89680
Officers 15270 ----- 17.03%
Airmen 74410 ----- 82.97%

2010 - Total 44060
Officers 9830 ----- 22.31%
Airmen 34230 ----- 77.69%

Explain the change in the ratios in a contracting airforce.

Look I know it doesn't affect you because you get paid like everone else. But every superflous ring equates to one man doing the work that three real men could be employed to do, and I think we both know someone is padding it up here in a cyle of self preservation.

May be , may not be. Whats the harm in having someone open the books and have a look? If it's all kosher, then nothing to worry about. Right?

Don't forget that "professionally qualified" officers will skew those figures significantly. It's dead easy for doctors, dentists, lawyers etc to end up at Wg Cdr / Gp Capt - and those branches are pretty significant.

Agreed that the Docs and Dentists etc would bump up the number a bit so the figures would make a bit more sense.

But as Stevienics pointed out how come the ratio of officers to arimen went from one officer for every five airmen too now one for every three and half airmen?

(bitch mode on) is it because the quality of officers has deminished so much that they can only cope with three or four airmen? PDT_Xtremez_42:Bitch mode off)

Seriously tho, these figures are highlighting something we have all felt was happening over the last ten years or so.

 

[duffman]

Some of it may be the contracting out of jobs. There are fewer people in uniform for the tasks to be done, but someone still needs to look after it all. That's not to say it will explain it all away but some of it.

 

[wally375]

Found these figures in MoS. Live magazine.
Manning 1990 strength- 89,680
Manning 2010 strength-44060
Just over a 50% reduction in 20 years.

Manning is broken down as follows
Acm 3
Am 8
Avm 26
Air comm 93
Group cap 340
Wc 1210
Sl 2570
Flt lt 4080
Fo/po 1500

Wo 1200
Fs/ct 3200
Sgt 6310
Cpl 8440
Jnr ranks 15080

The navy have gone from 63260 to 38724 and the Army from 152820 to 108869.

The figures for each rank are broken down under the NATO ranking system. Or-1 and or2 as a percentage of the manpower for all 3 services are roughly the same with 34% for RAF, 37% for the navy and 36% for the army.

You can tell I've got nothing better to do on nights.

It's good to see we're managed well at the top!DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Digzster]

Some of it may be the contracting out of jobs. There are fewer people in uniform for the tasks to be done, but someone still needs to look after it all. That's not to say it will explain it all away but some of it.

Surely "looking after it" would be better suited to WO's & FS's? Posted to the job for 4 - 6 yrs (not 2 yrs for orificers as present).

Methinks the SNCO's would also be in a better position to judge the specifications as they have been on the shop floor and actually done the tasks.

 

[duffman]

Surely "looking after it" would be better suited to WO's & FS's? Posted to the job for 4 - 6 yrs (not 2 yrs for orificers as present).

Methinks the SNCO's would also be in a better position to judge the specifications as they have been on the shop floor and actually done the tasks.

Maybe, but the zobs get the extra wedge to cover the old risk vs reward, grown ups don't(in terms of being OC)

 

[TrickyTree]

Steady on, mate!

...Explain the change in the ratios in a contracting airforce...

Firstly I am no apologist for anybody, so therefore why should I have to explain a goddamned thing! The argument I present is not mine, it is the official line, and I have not (and do not) state whether I agree or disagree with it. I just said I see some merit in it, which is quite a different thing.

...But every superflous ring equates to one man doing the work that three real men could be employed to do...

What, exactly, are you on about? This sounds a bit drivellish - it may or may not be true, I suspect the latter - can you substantiate your argument?

...Whats the harm in having someone open the books and have a look? If it's all kosher, then nothing to worry about. Right?

No harm at all, I quite agree. But you and others are not opening the books - you're just having ill-informed rants!

JPJ83 made a good point and neither his nor mine has been addressed by anybody.

 

[Drill Bit]

Here's a debate:

1990 - Total 89680
Officers 15270 ----- 17.03%
Airmen 74410 ----- 82.97%

2010 - Total 44060
Officers 9830 ----- 22.31%
Airmen 34230 ----- 77.69%

Explain the change in the ratios in a contracting airforce.

Look I know it doesn't affect you because you get paid like everone else. But every superflous ring equates to one man doing the work that three real men could be employed to do, and I think we both know someone is padding it up here in a cyle of self preservation.

May be , may not be. Whats the harm in having someone open the books and have a look? If it's all kosher, then nothing to worry about. Right?

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that we should employ "three real men" to do a job that can be done one man?

 

[Stevienics]

Actually, it is a bit drivellish. Not one of my better though out rants. It was meant to suggest that one thick ring undertaking an invented job was getting in the way of the right number of people being employed to do a real one <sigh>, there's the moment gone.

BTW, no one has addressed my query regarding proportions either.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

I've heard it explained before why the ratio of officers to men has increased.

One reason (which sounded feasible) was that when they closed all the aircraft component bays they laid off all the lads that worked in them.

However, they had to keep the officers to run the contracts and look after the budgets.

You couldn't have an oik talking to industry and controlling vast sums of money!

HTB

 

[Realist78]

I've heard it explained before why the ratio of officers to men has increased.

One reason (which sounded feasible) was that when they closed all the aircraft component bays they laid off all the lads that worked in them.

However, they had to keep the officers to run the contracts and look after the budgets.

You couldn't have an oik talking to industry and controlling vast sums of money!

HTB

Obviously because of their successful past!DT_Xtremez_34: