Is it time for the RAF to have US style Home guard squadrons?

[Shugster]

As an aside to the Tornado Mafia thread I thought I might push the idea around of the UK having volunteer flying squadrons.

Probably still way too expensive but I don´t think you would have too much trouble finding volunteers.

What do you all think?

 

[vim_fuego]

As an aside to the Tornado Mafia thread I thought I might push the idea around of the UK having volunteer flying squadrons.

Probably still way too expensive but I don´t think you would have too much trouble finding volunteers.

What do you all think?

Morally yes! Financially they bring no savings and that is what we are about...

 

[Shugster]

Morally yes! Financially they bring no savings and that is what we are about...

But you wouldn´t always be paying people 7 days a week.

(I realise that manpower is just a small part of the costs when it comes to operating Aircraft).

 

[vim_fuego]

But you wouldn´t always be paying people 7 days a week.

(I realise that manpower is just a small part of the costs when it comes to operating Aircraft).

The savings are in the base closures...manpower we can thin out...equipment we can flog to the scrappy but bases just sit, whether they be reservist or in use, sucking up the money...

Plus the review perceived that we can do without all thses assets so having them in as reserve options is going against it...

 

[Ex-Bay]

I take it you mean "Air National Guard" ?

 

[Shugster]

The savings are in the base closures...manpower we can thin out...equipment we can flog to the scrappy but bases just sit, whether they be reservist or in use, sucking up the money...

Plus the review perceived that we can do without all these assets so having them in as reserve options is going against it...

I think that was more the view of the accountants rather than the view of someone whose job is to run UK´s air defence / ground attack capabilities.

No carrier borne fast jets for at least 10 years, can we really do without that?... I know we will have to but the view that it´s something we can do without is IMO wrong.

If Wittering was to stay open as a logistics centre anyway, why not keep 2 Sqns there anyway?

 

[grumpyoldb]

It makes me wonder how the bean counters can close airfields saying we can't afford them, then hand them over for the army to occupy and keep them open.

I think keeping maybe a small flight of three aircraft at various regional airports would be good for air defense, after all the basic infrastructure is there already ie: fire cover/medical/air traffic. The spams do it, and we suck up to them on many other things.

 

[muttywhitedog]

One vulcan cannot be kept airborne due to lack of funding, so how on earth do you think several volunteer sqns can fly aircraft?

 

[grumpyoldb]

One vulcan cannot be kept airborne due to lack of funding, so how on earth do you think several volunteer sqns can fly aircraft?

One vulcan cannot be kept airborne due to the number of full time hangers-on taking a salary out of the project.

 

[252]

One vulcan cannot be kept airborne due to the number of full time hangers-on taking a salary out of the project.

Surely your not implying that in a sad parallel with the RAF there a teensy weensy bit top heavy in the senior management side of things Mr Grumps.........are you?DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[secretstacker]

I think keeping maybe a small flight of three aircraft at various regional airports would be good for air defense, after all the basic infrastructure is there already ie: fire cover/medical/air traffic. The spams do it, and we suck up to them on many other things.[/QUOTE]

Its not just the Spams, how many times have you arrived at your holiday airport, in Greece and Turkey, to be greeted by F16's sitting outide HAS's as you taxy in.

Mind you when Leeming was operational you always had a F3 (albeit a u/s one) at Newcastle airport.

 

[Downsizer]

It makes me wonder how the bean counters can close airfields saying we can't afford them, then hand them over for the army to occupy and keep them open.

I think keeping maybe a small flight of three aircraft at various regional airports would be good for air defense, after all the basic infrastructure is there already ie: fire cover/medical/air traffic. The spams do it, and we suck up to them on many other things.

Its not just the Spams, how many times have you arrived at your holiday airport, in Greece and Turkey, to be greeted by F16's sitting outide HAS's as you taxy in.

There is a difference between sharing facilities and having ANG squadrons, two different issues.

Anyway back to the question, total waste of time for us. The vast majority of ANG techies for instance work as full time reservists. No savings for us there...can't see any benefit what-so-ever.

 

[4mastacker]

Don't we already have an ANG-type set-up...it's called the R Aux AF(although somewhat limited in its role).

 

[busby1971]

Shuggie

Shuggie

Just a quick couple of points,

7 days pay.

We are on call all the time but our pay is based on civi comparators probably based on a standard working week.

Wittering Airfield keep it open

Apparently the runway isn't in the best nick it should be and may need quite a bit of investment to keep it fully operational.

another point

There'd be little saving in having an ANG, pilots would probably be military but everyone else would be civi. Main cost would be aircraft and running costs, then of course you'd need a whole bunch of higher management to run the thing with an ipt and such like.

 

[Rigga]

The following is - at a guess - what this "low cost option" will need to sustain any sort of rudimentary service...not a viable option in UK's circumstances.

People:
Wages (Techie calculated @£100Kpa - earning £40K Pilot @£200Kpa earning 70K)
Allowances
Pensions
Insurances
Administration (finance & personnel)
Accomodation (admin & personnel)
Clothing
Food
Transport

Facilities:
Tools
Manuals
Logistics - domestic - technical
Accomodation - Domestic - technical - type of work - type of aircraft - ATS/ATC - Airport!
Services - Gas - Elect - Water - Telephones - IT - Sewerage - Drains
Environmental issues - Env Protection - Env Disposals
Specialist clothing & equipment
Transport
Management systems (Tech - Ops - Admin)
Security

Aircraft:
Ownership - Lease or Buy?
Insurance?
Transport
Manuals
Maintenance
Regulatory compliance - AD's?
Fuel - Suppliers, Distribution, Storage, Maintenance, Quality, Disposal
POL - Suppliers, Distribution, Storage, Maintenance, Quality, Disposal
Parts - Suppliers?!, Distribution, Storage, Maintenance, Quality, Disposal

 

[John Lloyd]

Egyptian management pyramid, traditionally it's wider at the bottom. if you turn it on it's head that's going to be one very busy SAC.

 

[smokeyreid]

Hang on a min, I think your looking at this from the wrong angle. The whole idea of reserve forces are to provide a reserve force to reinforce an existing force very cheaply. RAuxAF aircrew have operated in the RAF recently, didn't 25 sqn have reserve aircrew before it closed? These aircrew were existing aircrew that left the full time RAF, but kept their hand in using existing aircraft and an existing engineering manpower/resources i.e. 25 Sqn assets. Think about more aircrew available for OOA's at a very small extra price to pay.

But, if you look at the average squadron manpower ratio you have shed loads of engineers to aircrew, why not have a RAuxAF flight (integrated into a current Sqn say 9 Sqn) with ex full time RAF engineers who would fix aircraft on a weekend, this in the big picture would increase aircraft availability considerably for monday morning (would also make the OOA manpower pool bigger) or keep the squadron on track after the RAuxAF aircrew who have flown that wend. Whoever joined the squadron (ex techies) that hadn't worked on tonkas could be easily trained as linies or be used as additional labour!!!

Winner!!!

DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Rigga]

Thats not what the Poll question says?

 

[Shugster]

OK, I could have worded the question a bit better but Smokeyreid has the roughly the same idea as myself.

Edit to add: And a 40% yes isn't too bad either.

 

[busby1971]

In 27 days a year

In 27 days a year

But, if you look at the average squadron manpower ratio you have shed loads of engineers to aircrew, why not have a RAuxAF flight (integrated into a current Sqn say 9 Sqn) with ex full time RAF engineers who would fix aircraft on a weekend, this in the big picture would increase aircraft availability considerably for monday morning (would also make the OOA manpower pool bigger) or keep the squadron on track after the RAuxAF aircrew who have flown that wend. Whoever joined the squadron (ex techies) that hadn't worked on tonkas could be easily trained as linies or be used as additional labour!!!

Winner!!!

DT_Xtremez_14:

Loser

There would be little chance to maintain any kind of currency when you think that the minimum commitment for a reservist is 27 days a year, most expect and are budgetted for 35 days, you would need higher levels of supervision due to lack of currency from regular staff wich costs.

Skill fade will kick in and as new ac types come in the training burden would be massive.

You would then need support staff to come in at weekends, more cooking for chefs, suppy open to supply, admin to administrate, if you've got a sizeable population then you may need to keep a doc and a medic on duty.

If you are going to open the airfield you'll need ATC and the fire section, a sudden increase in weekend flying will prompt complaints from the locals.

And finally the RAuxAF are volunteer reserves, if they don't want to turn in for a weekend or even a day or part of a day you cannot make them, as long as they meet the minimum commitment, some weekends you'll get loads in others hardly any one.

(by the way they tried it with lesser skilled trades supporting individual forces and it didn't work, the amount of training staff/assets required becomes too expensive, money, equipment and personnel.)