There are already squadrons that do both of the above. I don’t know which is best though, both seem to have positives and negatives.
Increasing the size of squadrons that already share a building (with ATC or ACF) is where the money will need to go.
MOD solution to the problem will probably be - RAFAC parade on 3 nights per week, ACF parade on 3 different nights per week and Sea Cadets parade on the other 3 nights per week 
2 Likes
Plus there is the pressure from the uplift in the Reserves, so fewer spare nights for those in Reserves buildings.
Wonder how long before they bring us back into the reserves(T) to fudge the numbers
Sort of the reverse of disbanding the ROC and declaring the Scorpion a ‘tank’ to meat the Conventional Forces Europe treaty terms?
1 Like
That makes it seem like 1 half of the sqn is subbordinate to thje other, Maybe If everyone would take a 3 Didgit Sqn No we could have
123 Sqn
1 Flt (1231) Flt
2 Flt (1232) Flt
Absolutley, I cant remember where but I said something similar using @OC.1324 s Sqn as an Example
Perm Staff as OC(Sqn Ldr), SWO, Adj, Trg Off(both Plt off - Fg Off) etc. at Sqn
CFAV as Flt Cdr(Flt Lt), Flt SNCO etc. at flight level
Might even get keen Cadets (FS, CWO) at Sqn Level…
Although I have a feeling that this require Squadrons to close and amalgamated, unpopular and ultimately making us less accessible e.i. the opposite of this whole expansion excersise
Damn,
Great minds think i suppose
FTFY, Hope youve all got your War bags ready 
1 Like
I don’t remember the post mentioned but I suspect permanent / paid staff as OC/ trg off would be too much - even parading 4 nights a week it’s still not a full time post.
What might work would be to move to a Reserves type model with VA/pay attached to parade nights and other duties.
Could be via a bounty system so those that do the extra (and so might have to say, work fewer hours in their main job) receive it.
As for VR / VR(T) I can see the merit in that for those who take on the extra workload.
It could also be that CFAV could volunteer to taken more of a Reserve role in a crisis - call up liability for home service or training duties maybe.
I’d imagine that would need to go along with the annual MATT or Certificate of Efficiency, even if they allowed lower standards for fitness. There’d need to be time for the training for all that and an uplift in stores. We can’t go to war with a few L98s and whatever bits of webbing squadrons have squirrelled away.
1 Like
That isn’t generally how it works. Flts with numbers are independent of any sqn (e.g. 1435 Flt in the Falklands) whereas flts within sqns are lettered (‘A’ Flt, ‘B’ Flt, etc.) or sometimes named.
Judging by the In Memoriam - Cadet Squadrons Lost, Closed, Merged & Disbanded thread, there are plenty of sqn numbers in suspended animation that could be reactivated for a second sqn at a given location: otherwise we go with a single Sqn HQ element with two or more co-located flts (lettered or named) drilling on different nights.
N.B. It would not be appropriate to call either of these a D.F. for the simple reason that they are not detached.
2 Likes
Though more DFs might be a fairly quick way to increase capacity.
My RAF TRFs are in my sock drawer just in case
I meant it as an accountancy exercise
‘We have increased the overall size of the Army/RAF Reserves by x thousand people’
It will be just like the 1.5% to take us to 5% that has to be ‘defence related’ that can cover just about anything if you are clever enough.
(Maybe we can get HS2 assigned as a major defence infrastructure project to shave 5 minutes of moving a tank from Birmingham to London - that should take us to 15% GDP )
I get that, but it’s not an entirely daft idea (and afaik the MOD’s contribution to the CFs is in the budgets anyway, but CEP funds aren’t).
A few years ago I was told the S in VGS changed from ‘School’ to ‘Squadron’ for similar reasons.
What about the level of salary!! If they went with CS pay, then Flt Lt is deemed to be EO equivalent so you are talking under £30k a year. Who would give up the normal day job for that 
This has finally made its way to LaSER.
1 Like
This really annoys me. We shouldn’t ever stop an activity because we don’t know the policy or process - that’s for the REMFs in the back to agree on. Just let us “front line staff” carry on as we were until someone decides conclusively which is their ass and elbow.
There’s some real pain here in that the policy got updated, then 5 days later someone pointed out the new policy was as clear as mud, so that the activity got stopped pending clarification on the new policy wording. Now we’re waiting on it to be re-written.
Why are we discussing drone policy?
Apple have apps, we have threads, and there’s a thread for that.
1 Like
Topics!
