I agree much of it too complex to be solved easily at cadet forces level.
But if you want to remove a blocker to new CEP RAF sections - you move everyone onto the same cadet forces management platform.
1 Like
I don’t know much about the CCF but are staff encouraged/pressured into being instructors? I can’t imagine every teacher being thrilled to have to play soldiers on school time. A voluntold volunteer will not be much help
1 Like
my understanding of it is CCF time is part of their contract.
X hours teacher to include Y hours supporting the onsite CCF unit.
at least that works for new hires, how to get existing staff on board is a harder battle and suspect as you suggest are encouraged to do so - much like most jobs there are keen ones who will pick up additional task outside the job description to gain favour and good reputation with the bosses, (i wear two hats at work which are voluntary and not part of my job spec) CCF staff i suspect are partly made up of these types
1 Like
It encouraged but not as mandated - it use to be part of contracts but that’s more common in private schools where it’s the extra curricular activities that are the focus.
It tends to be seen as a good was to develop teachers & prepping for head of department roles when the posts may not be available.
The issues can be the schools understanding of risk & not letting the pupils take part in cadet forces activities (e.g. flying) without their own risk assessments being completed.
They probably have a better understanding of risk than HGAC and the MOD
There was at least one officer on my OIC that was told they should run the CCF RAF section as it would be good for their development. No previous interest/experience in aviation, the outdoors or anything military.
Expansion can take the forms of many ideas, however you can’t force kids to join an uniformed organisation that they have no interest in, when their idea of fun is hanging about with their mates after school in a supermarket carpark throwing stones off a wall. It could go one of a few ways and some will be less popular than others. It could be pushing more of it into mainstream schools which could have an effect on the ATC/ACF Units.
The other could be combined working, Using a CCF model but a full rebrand (not going to be popular with some). After some housekeeping in terms of merging into one IT management, recruitment/processing of CFAV, civil servants and the Mandatory training/learning system. Having one safeguarding HQ, some levelling off in terms of borders, where Companies/Sectors and Battalions/Wings sit and organisation of structure.
We get to the point of creating the Combined Cadet Force that can parade on up to 4 nights a week if you really wanted. Yes we would lose the RAF identity and the ACF would lose their connection their affiliation with a Regiment or Corps. However on the flip side to it. Staffing wise we would have approx 17,500 for around an organisation of 79,000. We would have extra qualified AT staff, shooting and fieldcraft along with being able to provide an option of gliding/flying. The Regional level camps would be big enough to be specialist camps whether that be in Engineering, general STEM/Cyber or D&C or AT etc. We would have enough staff per detachment/squadron to be able to offer 1st aid, fieldcraft, radio/cyber, leadership, MOI, DofE, shooting, and other training constantly.
There should also be a shake up of both Progressive training syllabuses to be modern and appeal to the mindset of the organisation. The “New CCF” could easily become just MTP/Greens with a black beret and appropriate logo badge saving more costs and saving costs to the CFAV too. It wouldn’t be popular for some however realistically apart from us wearing blues, visiting RAF stations , Flying and gliding (not much of that) what difference is there between the 2 organisations?
Even if it wasn’t a full rebrand a lot of cross overs occur. The whole new drone ideas that are being looked at within RAFAC are on the size that the British Army have used with the Royal Artillery for years, its not like we are getting our cadets to fly Protector/Reaper!
The first thing to do with a combined organisation is bin off the RAFAC Civil Service model and go with the ACF (RFCA staff, uniformed), SCC (paid staff work for the charity) or CCF (uniformed SSI employed by the school) models.
There’s no need for a combined hierarchy to result in any loss of identity at lower levels. The CCF and RM cadets within the SCC are both proof of this.
4 Likes
There’s also no reason that an RAF ‘section’ can’t be similar to a regimental affiliation. Wear the beret and badge but rest of the uniform is ‘new CCF’, common syllabus but the RAF provide some support and activities.
Similar to how say the RE or R Sigs (or even AAC) ‘parent’ reserve units support their cap badged ACF companies but don’t run or dictate the day to day training.
3 Likes