Cuts eh, who could have foretold the situation the armed forces are in say 10 years ago? If the MoD are asked to save more they can’t afford to have white elephants like UAS or OTC and in that I’d include the cadet forces, unless it goes completely over to the CCF model and a proportion of the funding comes from the DfE in some form.
The problem with the UAS system like OTC is that it caters for a few who are not of the typical demographic. One of our old cadets joined OTC at uni about 18 years ago and left after a few months and said it was to all intents a drinking club for people who wanted to play at soldiers and I imagine UAS is similar but for pilots. Having met a number of UAS while on annual camps, the over riding evident characteristic was arrogance in the vast majority.
Are those who have been on UAS allowed/able to skip a proportion of the training, therefore saving the RAF money?
The current crop of UAS students in my experience are very hard working, committed, intelligent and likeable young people. If the UAS manages to recruit a decent percentage of these people into the Officer cadre (of all branches - it ceased to be all about pilots years ago) and Defence roles then the modest investment is well worth it. They are certainly more professional and better behaved than I was at UAS!
Little direct experience of UAS - a friend of mine who was in it 20 years ago would agree it was a drinking and flying club but that could well be out of date info. Recent UAS cadets I’ve met have been excellent.
It used to offer a full EFT course meaning those recruited as pilots didn’t need EFT. Sadly no longer.
I think UAS/OTC/URNU is likely to be overhauled - a careers officer recently said to me they were looking at ensuring all those who benefited from membership had some return of service obligation (my friend in the first paragraph for example went CCF > UAS > British Airways, ‘thanks taxpayer for the free flying…’ though he did come back as a CCF RAF officer for a while and was considering an RAF career when he joined, so it wasn’t entirely cynical)
Not as such, yet - or not in an auditable fashion. Unfortunately that is a by-product of the modern, DSAT, OFSTED wary, training system. What they do provide is (on the whole) very high calibre entrants to IOT who are already air minded, have a good grounding in Force Development and field craft and for those entering the aircrew branches, a solid foundation with which to enter flying training, where the majority go on to do very well indeed. A better standard of flying on entry to EFT => higher achieving EFT graduate. On the flip side, for the other branches it gives them a good grounding on what the actual point of the RAF is: to get aircraft (air systems!) off the ground and doing a job.
Have you been on a UAS? The major difference I’d suggest is the far more level playing field afforded by the UAS system.
That is probably a correct assessment. Then again, to single out the UAS as a drinking club would be unfair - the whole attitude to drinking, certainly in the flying environment within the RAF has changed beyond recognition in the past 10-15 years. Back then a UAS might recruit 20-30 potential pilots per year, alongside a few bursars from other branches, and 10-15 might enter IOT after 3 years. The modern focus, although now pushing a few more pilots into IOT post 2015, is far more rounded towards the whole Officer cadre, and hence flying “achievement” has taken a back seat. The “ethos” is still there, in appropriate levels.
Difficult. They want to do very different things in fostering an interest in their own services. Particularly the UOTC units, some of whom will vacuum 150-180 entrants per year.
No - none at all. I’ve just got a broad experience of what they have done over a fairly significant period of time and change. This is both as a student and then later as permanent staff.
To be honest, I just don’t like people casting aspersions of what, on the whole, is a valuable and worthwhile asset to our parent service based on what is relatively minimal contact.
How can you make a fair statement on the “outcomes” if you don’t have experience of both? What are these “outcomes” to which you refer? I can’t help but think you may have something of a grudge?
Of course, it’s also an inconvenient fact that quite a lot, probably half, or UAS recruits have significant experience as Air Cadets. It’s also worth noting that the ATC and UAS are trying to do very different things.
I honestly bear no grudge. I’ve met idiots on both sides of the fence.
Outcomes:
primarily provide basic flying training
force development
adventurous training
provide a taste of life in the Service
give experience to their members in preparation for taking up a career as an officer in one of the RAF’s many branches.
I know the ATC only has three aims, but the expanse of training and life skills is much wider than that of the UAS.
I’m not sure it is. I can’t really think of anything in the Cadets I could not have done in the UAS. There is also far greater access to everything the forces offer too. And of course far greater independence to run your own life, so to speak, amongst your peers (a limitation of age and maturity more than anything else with the ATC).
Who’s casting aspersions? I merely queried from your comments if you had a vested interest and as former student and permanent staff I would suggest you have.
Me I have no axe to grind as from a cadet perspective without UAS and the ATC effectively using the UAS as source of it’s AEF, the UAS needs to continue as without it cadet AEF would go out of the window, as I couldn’t see the stomach in the MoD for financing cadet experience flying, in what are effectively jollies, whatever the pieces of paper might suggest otherwise. The flying scholarship system is so limited to make the instruction from occasional flights in a Tutor worthless. Even in my cadet days, you might get an AEF Chippie trip once a year and then one at camp perhaps.
Nothing in life in certain outside death and taxes. So expecting the whole university “cadet” set up to survive in its current format in perpetuity is short-sighted, unless it shows a benefit / accessibility for all comers rather than just the Officer caste. As a taxpayer I want something that is open to all and respectful of all.
Nothing in life in certain outside death and taxes. So expecting the whole university “cadet” set up to survive in its current format in perpetuity is short-sighted, unless it shows a benefit / accessibility for all comers rather than just the Officer caste. As a taxpayer I want something that is open to all and respectful of all.
[/quote]
Officer caste? It’s a recruiting tool to put young graduate with good potential into IOT. It is open to all (medical permitting), and how is it not “respectful of all”?
I have no current professional or personal connection with the UAS system (and I’m highly unlikely to do so again), so therefore can have no vested interest.
Do I follow what they do? Yes, to an extent, but that comes from wanting the best possible, high quality people to enter IOT and into Phase 2 training. Not all will be, but the UAS system does a very good job from the recent evidence I’ve seen.
