RAF Meltdown - Has it begun?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
JPA is so successful that my local handbrake house is now extending its improved service and closing two afternoons per week playing catchup and PMA has put restrictions on its open door policy as JPA has given them much more time to manage things.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no clear picture in the latest MoD Account for 2005/06;
"Retention and Voluntary Outflow 282.
Rates of retention and voluntary outflow (previously known as premature voluntary release) also contribute to the achievement of manning balance. The Armed Forces have set thresholds, based upon historical averages, against which they manage the potential impact of early exits in order to achieve a desirable balance between retaining skills and experience and new recruitment. We therefore track the number of Service men and Service women voluntarily leaving the Forces before the end of their agreed term, against of stable long-term voluntary outflow rates of 2.5% and 4% for RAF officers and Other Ranks. Figures for the last three years are set out below.
There was a significant increase in Voluntary Outflow exits rates for RAF Other Ranks during 2005-06 which put the RAF above its long term target range. This was caused by faster processing of applications for redundancy from staff during the drawdown period; Voluntary Outflow application rates did not change significantly. Whilst some of the Voluntary Outflow figures are above the stable long term goals this is partly a reflection of employment opportunities outside the Services. We have a number of initiatives to improve retention and morale in general, including improving living accommodation (see paragraphs 301-302), better travel allowances to allow people home more readily, better work-life balance and improved working conditions at the front-line.....
.....The Royal Air Force is facing a period of deficit manning as the drawdown programme
proceeds. During this year there were deficits in a number of specialisations including Junior Officer Pilots, Fighter Controllers, Medical Officers, Weapons Systems Operator (Linguist), Weapons Systems Operator (Air Load Master), Provost/Security, Medical Support and Nurses, causing breaches of Individual Harmony Guidelines in some cases."
So, no mention of a lack of engineers, no mention of impending crisis. I was open mouthed about the enthusiasm with which the improvements in working conditions on the front line were going to bring about improved retention and morale. I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of people trying to improve facilities, but surely this misses the main point. That is, in the case of the RAF, which employs older personnel, more likely to have families, any failure to deal with breaches in harmony guidelines will surely result in an increase in numbers running for the door. Furthermore, the abject failure to provide blast proof accommodation in bases subject to nightly mortar attacks is hardly likely to be conducive to good morale.
The small sample of posts on this thread suggest the crisis is just round the corner. Next year's report should be interesting reading.
"Retention and Voluntary Outflow 282.
Rates of retention and voluntary outflow (previously known as premature voluntary release) also contribute to the achievement of manning balance. The Armed Forces have set thresholds, based upon historical averages, against which they manage the potential impact of early exits in order to achieve a desirable balance between retaining skills and experience and new recruitment. We therefore track the number of Service men and Service women voluntarily leaving the Forces before the end of their agreed term, against of stable long-term voluntary outflow rates of 2.5% and 4% for RAF officers and Other Ranks. Figures for the last three years are set out below.
There was a significant increase in Voluntary Outflow exits rates for RAF Other Ranks during 2005-06 which put the RAF above its long term target range. This was caused by faster processing of applications for redundancy from staff during the drawdown period; Voluntary Outflow application rates did not change significantly. Whilst some of the Voluntary Outflow figures are above the stable long term goals this is partly a reflection of employment opportunities outside the Services. We have a number of initiatives to improve retention and morale in general, including improving living accommodation (see paragraphs 301-302), better travel allowances to allow people home more readily, better work-life balance and improved working conditions at the front-line.....
.....The Royal Air Force is facing a period of deficit manning as the drawdown programme
proceeds. During this year there were deficits in a number of specialisations including Junior Officer Pilots, Fighter Controllers, Medical Officers, Weapons Systems Operator (Linguist), Weapons Systems Operator (Air Load Master), Provost/Security, Medical Support and Nurses, causing breaches of Individual Harmony Guidelines in some cases."
So, no mention of a lack of engineers, no mention of impending crisis. I was open mouthed about the enthusiasm with which the improvements in working conditions on the front line were going to bring about improved retention and morale. I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of people trying to improve facilities, but surely this misses the main point. That is, in the case of the RAF, which employs older personnel, more likely to have families, any failure to deal with breaches in harmony guidelines will surely result in an increase in numbers running for the door. Furthermore, the abject failure to provide blast proof accommodation in bases subject to nightly mortar attacks is hardly likely to be conducive to good morale.
The small sample of posts on this thread suggest the crisis is just round the corner. Next year's report should be interesting reading.
Last edited by nigegilb; 15th Nov 2006 at 17:44.
PN, A quick look in the ever helpful JAP100A shows that there are tasks that a SEngO cannot sign (loose articles spring to mind) and a higher level of authority is required. Who would provide that if OC Eng & Supply was a supplier?
Of course we could have OC Fwd & OC Depth and OC Supply creating 2 valuable jobs for Wing Commanders where 1 used to cope!
Last edited by insty66; 16th Nov 2006 at 09:35. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insty66,
Not having JAP100A to hand, and trying to remember, isn't it more about who holds QR640 responsibilities? I don't know if it ever happened, but the way that it was put some time ago was that if OC ESW (as was) was ever a supplier, then OC ME(A)S or OC Eng Ops (as were) would hold QR640 responsibilities. Therefore, the career crashing sketch that GMP indicated should never happen as the supplier would be stepping beyond the bounds of his authority if he tried to tell an engineer what to do re airworthiness. Not that it would necessarily be an easy 'marriage'. And I don't know if the theory was ever tested.
I'm sure Safety_Helmut, with his books stashed by his bed, will have an answer
sw
Not having JAP100A to hand, and trying to remember, isn't it more about who holds QR640 responsibilities? I don't know if it ever happened, but the way that it was put some time ago was that if OC ESW (as was) was ever a supplier, then OC ME(A)S or OC Eng Ops (as were) would hold QR640 responsibilities. Therefore, the career crashing sketch that GMP indicated should never happen as the supplier would be stepping beyond the bounds of his authority if he tried to tell an engineer what to do re airworthiness. Not that it would necessarily be an easy 'marriage'. And I don't know if the theory was ever tested.
I'm sure Safety_Helmut, with his books stashed by his bed, will have an answer
sw
We have a number of initiatives to improve retention and morale in general, including improving living accommodation (see paragraphs 301-302), better travel allowances to allow people home more readily, better work-life balance and improved working conditions at the front-line.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
RAF to RAAF or RNZAF, etc?
I'll apologize in advance for the thread creep, but I'm curious how something I've seen on this and other mil aircrew threads works, namely:
How do you switch from RAF to the RAAF or RNZAF (other Commonwealth AFs)? And why? Are the generalites of each AF the same for career, etc?
Not a wind up, just curious. Since we (USAF) have no equivalent, it puzzles me.
How do you switch from RAF to the RAAF or RNZAF (other Commonwealth AFs)? And why? Are the generalites of each AF the same for career, etc?
Not a wind up, just curious. Since we (USAF) have no equivalent, it puzzles me.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll apologize in advance for the thread creep, but I'm curious how something I've seen on this and other mil aircrew threads works, namely:
How do you switch from RAF to the RAAF or RNZAF (other Commonwealth AFs)? And why? Are the generalites of each AF the same for career, etc?
Not a wind up, just curious. Since we (USAF) have no equivalent, it puzzles me.
How do you switch from RAF to the RAAF or RNZAF (other Commonwealth AFs)? And why? Are the generalites of each AF the same for career, etc?
Not a wind up, just curious. Since we (USAF) have no equivalent, it puzzles me.
It's quite common to find Aussies and New Zealanders in the RAF (and RN); and I've known several Brit RAF guys transfer to RAAF.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their are some that have gone to the RNZAF and it has not been quite what they expected. Lyneham has had some RAAF Aircrew over to stem the shortfall in the Air Eng job.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the replies, but I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly. I know an RAF type can go to RAAF, for example, and the reverse, but why would one?
I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?
I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Where Alberts are Fixed
Age: 62
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup. The real dilemma wouldn't be CAA dealing with things as airframes, engines or avionics and the like - the real crunch would come with weapons. Who in CAA deals with them????
On the other side of this coin, the problem is it wouldn't be a case of ACAS surrendering but of CAA enacting its legal rights under the Air Navigation and other Acts. I think that's what caused everyone to step back from the brink in the early 90s.
And supposing CAA didn't step in when it should have, and a problem occurs - in this litigous age, what then I wonder?
I think I'll go back to dreamland now where it's warm and safe and I don't have to worry about such things.
On the other side of this coin, the problem is it wouldn't be a case of ACAS surrendering but of CAA enacting its legal rights under the Air Navigation and other Acts. I think that's what caused everyone to step back from the brink in the early 90s.
And supposing CAA didn't step in when it should have, and a problem occurs - in this litigous age, what then I wonder?
I think I'll go back to dreamland now where it's warm and safe and I don't have to worry about such things.
It's not just the weapons aspects. What about the tactical flying aspects? Your average airliner takes off, climbs to cruise altitude, descends, and lands....Endex. Who in CAA would (if qualified) be able to deal with the case of Albert flying tactically at MSD/OLF altitudes? Even QQ baulk at some of the things we ask our crews and ac to do.
Mac
Last edited by Mactlsm1; 15th Nov 2006 at 23:45. Reason: SP
Thanks for the replies, but I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly. I know an RAF type can go to RAAF, for example, and the reverse, but why would one?
I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?
I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?
Reason for doing so? It has to be the quality of life for you and your family.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reason for doing so? It has to be the quality of life for you and your family.
Loyalty goes both ways, and MOD (UK) plc are loyal to nobody. It takes more than medals to stop a divorce. Especially when the UK man on the street does not understand 'why' body bags are arriving by weekly C17.
Aligned to quality of life is Job Security, and there is not much of that around here either nowadays.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The RNZAF, when I visited many moons ago had a coordinated recruitment system in place. By that I mean coordinated with the Government that also wanted inward immigration.
The ToS they offered was a 4-year commission in your current rank. In those days the RAF had scraped the first two promotion exams but retained the C for promotion to sqn ldr. I never knew the A in the RAF, it was possibly initial officer training. The B was for promotion to flt lt.
In the RNZAF an ex-flt lt had to pass the B to retain his commission after the 4 years.
Quality of life says it all and it was good to be wanted by both service and country.
In UK we now have a good life balance. An equal number of us are emigrating as we reach retirement age, and a good many before that, to the number of migrants that come here legally and settle.
The ToS they offered was a 4-year commission in your current rank. In those days the RAF had scraped the first two promotion exams but retained the C for promotion to sqn ldr. I never knew the A in the RAF, it was possibly initial officer training. The B was for promotion to flt lt.
In the RNZAF an ex-flt lt had to pass the B to retain his commission after the 4 years.
Quality of life says it all and it was good to be wanted by both service and country.
In UK we now have a good life balance. An equal number of us are emigrating as we reach retirement age, and a good many before that, to the number of migrants that come here legally and settle.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just the weapons aspects. What about the tactical flying aspects? Your average airliner takes off, climbs to cruise altitude, descends, and lands....Endex. Who in CAA would (if qualified) be able to deal with the case of Albert flying tactically at MSD/OLF altitudes? Even QQ baulk at some of the things we ask our crews and ac to do.
Mac
Mac
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I smell fish.
JPA is so successful that my local handbrake house is now extending its improved service and closing two afternoons per week playing catchup and PMA has put restrictions on its open door policy as JPA has given them much more time to manage things.
JPA is so successful that my local handbrake house is now extending its improved service and closing two afternoons per week playing catchup and PMA has put restrictions on its open door policy as JPA has given them much more time to manage things.
it seems that Handbrake House and the JPA fraternity have created a very useful diversion. All focus is on them and their apparent ineptitude, allowing personnel to become occupied with sorting out their own pay and individual circumstances. This may be a very good time to bury other bad news, so, stand to!!! or perhaps this is a devide and rule manoeuvre. That however, would take planning, so it probably most unlikely.
On a more positive note, the more people that leave, the more individual assistance and quality time the remainder should receive to alleviate their unfortunate confusion.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Flatlands
Age: 61
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get back on track. The following letter was posted on E-Goat, the unofficial RAF Rumour service, because not surprisingly the RAF wouldn't print it. Hopefully adds to the debate and raises some interesting issues with regards to a "top-heavy" Air Force that needs modernising. Excellent last line.
I sent off a version of the following as a letter to the RAF News a while back, and have yet to receive a reply for some reason. It will be interesting to hear other peoples opinions on the contents.
I was pleased to see the letter from Sgt Mark Clay in issue 1136 of the RAF News, I'm sure his comments are welcomed by many, his point about the low morale of many personnel within the ground trades should cause concern. In recent months many have been affected by E2E Studies, Leaning and amalgamation, no doubt more will be, either by loss of individual posts, whole sections, or by leaving the service due to redundancy or natural wastage. The changes occurring within most ground trades vary from mild to traumatic, the rapidity of some of these changes in the interest of saving money does smack of knee jerk reactions to political or monetary pressure, it's only a matter of time before a few baby's get thrown out with the bathwater.
My reason for putting pen to paper is to ask if/when the people who have made all the changes to date are to be 'leaned', namely the management structure and the officer corps. The collocation of the two Command Headquarters may see a reduction of manpower by 1000, but most of this manpower will be civilians who are no longer needed when one Headquarters closes. Interesting debates will no doubt follow if this letter is published; here are a few points to ponder.
Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting. How many of these posts can be justifiably classed as essential cogs in the machine required to produce a cost effective operational force? The ratio of executive officers per operational airframe must cause some raised eyebrows in Whitehall; add all the pay, gratuities and pensions together over 10 years and you can easily afford a few more Typhoons or JCA's. Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.
The career structure of the officer corps can also be improved upon, why is it that officers only do 2-year tours; can this be classed as good value for money? The methods used in End to End studies is to compare the work done to a large factory, using phrases such as 'customer', 'product' and 'materials'; continuing the theme, any civilian company worth it's salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in place, and would act quickly to move on or dismiss the worst. A two year tour gives little time for development, the first six months learning the job and getting to know people leaves just 18 months of actual productivity. Officers who excel within a certain post move on all too soon, often to an area that bears little or no relationship to the post they leave behind. With competent NCOs shouldering the burden a less adept manager can keep a low profile for 2 years relatively easily. A four year tour will allow the better officer to shine through career-wise, and allow the less competent to be seen for what they are and, hopefully, correct their failings. Other benefits would be increased stability for the individual, not to mention a reduction in training and movement costs.
I read with interest the article by ACM Sir Brian Burridge in issue 1,135 of the RAF News entitled 'RAF is adapting to new challenges', where he made some interesting comments on the changes to the structure of the RAF currently being undertaken. He concluded by saying 'we need a relevant Air Force; that's relevant operationally, and relevant in an economic or a value for money sense.' Adding 'We need fewer, but more adaptable people.' I have served over 26 years and like Sgt Clay have seen many changes, from the end of the Cold War to today's E2E; adaptability and the good old 'can do' attitude have been bywords that have been applied to airmen throughout. Speaking as an engineer we have seen the demise of the Flight Line Mechanic, Direct Entrant technician and the Apprentice, the Mech(Mech) and Mech(Tech) system quickly replaced with the SAC Tech causing the loss of the J/T rank, amalgamation of TG1 trades and the re-introduction of the Flight Line Mechanic in the form of the AMM. One area that has never changed in this time is the way the officer corps functions, and to my knowledge no one has looked into it's efficiency and effectiveness; with the future manning of the RAF giving a ratio of almost 1 officer for 2 airmen perhaps it's time to do so now.
In the late 80's it was said that you could get the whole of the RAF into Wembley, nowadays everyone would fit into the average Division 1 ground; but if seats were allocated by status the terraces would look empty, whilst the VIP boxes would be packed solid.
I sent off a version of the following as a letter to the RAF News a while back, and have yet to receive a reply for some reason. It will be interesting to hear other peoples opinions on the contents.
I was pleased to see the letter from Sgt Mark Clay in issue 1136 of the RAF News, I'm sure his comments are welcomed by many, his point about the low morale of many personnel within the ground trades should cause concern. In recent months many have been affected by E2E Studies, Leaning and amalgamation, no doubt more will be, either by loss of individual posts, whole sections, or by leaving the service due to redundancy or natural wastage. The changes occurring within most ground trades vary from mild to traumatic, the rapidity of some of these changes in the interest of saving money does smack of knee jerk reactions to political or monetary pressure, it's only a matter of time before a few baby's get thrown out with the bathwater.
My reason for putting pen to paper is to ask if/when the people who have made all the changes to date are to be 'leaned', namely the management structure and the officer corps. The collocation of the two Command Headquarters may see a reduction of manpower by 1000, but most of this manpower will be civilians who are no longer needed when one Headquarters closes. Interesting debates will no doubt follow if this letter is published; here are a few points to ponder.
Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting. How many of these posts can be justifiably classed as essential cogs in the machine required to produce a cost effective operational force? The ratio of executive officers per operational airframe must cause some raised eyebrows in Whitehall; add all the pay, gratuities and pensions together over 10 years and you can easily afford a few more Typhoons or JCA's. Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.
The career structure of the officer corps can also be improved upon, why is it that officers only do 2-year tours; can this be classed as good value for money? The methods used in End to End studies is to compare the work done to a large factory, using phrases such as 'customer', 'product' and 'materials'; continuing the theme, any civilian company worth it's salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in place, and would act quickly to move on or dismiss the worst. A two year tour gives little time for development, the first six months learning the job and getting to know people leaves just 18 months of actual productivity. Officers who excel within a certain post move on all too soon, often to an area that bears little or no relationship to the post they leave behind. With competent NCOs shouldering the burden a less adept manager can keep a low profile for 2 years relatively easily. A four year tour will allow the better officer to shine through career-wise, and allow the less competent to be seen for what they are and, hopefully, correct their failings. Other benefits would be increased stability for the individual, not to mention a reduction in training and movement costs.
I read with interest the article by ACM Sir Brian Burridge in issue 1,135 of the RAF News entitled 'RAF is adapting to new challenges', where he made some interesting comments on the changes to the structure of the RAF currently being undertaken. He concluded by saying 'we need a relevant Air Force; that's relevant operationally, and relevant in an economic or a value for money sense.' Adding 'We need fewer, but more adaptable people.' I have served over 26 years and like Sgt Clay have seen many changes, from the end of the Cold War to today's E2E; adaptability and the good old 'can do' attitude have been bywords that have been applied to airmen throughout. Speaking as an engineer we have seen the demise of the Flight Line Mechanic, Direct Entrant technician and the Apprentice, the Mech(Mech) and Mech(Tech) system quickly replaced with the SAC Tech causing the loss of the J/T rank, amalgamation of TG1 trades and the re-introduction of the Flight Line Mechanic in the form of the AMM. One area that has never changed in this time is the way the officer corps functions, and to my knowledge no one has looked into it's efficiency and effectiveness; with the future manning of the RAF giving a ratio of almost 1 officer for 2 airmen perhaps it's time to do so now.
In the late 80's it was said that you could get the whole of the RAF into Wembley, nowadays everyone would fit into the average Division 1 ground; but if seats were allocated by status the terraces would look empty, whilst the VIP boxes would be packed solid.
Thanks for the replies, but I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly. I know an RAF type can go to RAAF, for example, and the reverse, but why would one?
I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?
I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?
My last boss went RAF->RAAF->RAF... He said it was family reasons that brought him back to Blighty, but he really enjoyed being in Oz.
Last edited by TMJ; 16th Nov 2006 at 14:16. Reason: typo
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting.
Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.[I]
Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting.
Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.[I]
We tried the empowered Master(WO) route in the NCA cadre and it has resulted in very little difference in the number of Rearcrew officers still employed.