Going off of this…
There are not very many OF2/3s that could arguably be called SMEs.
The only OF2 SMEs are arguably the senior operators at station level. There has been an introduction of OF3 eng SMEs, but it wouldn’t map to how RAFAC works.
Our SMEs are OR6-OR9s and in some areas OR4s.
Bad idea. FTRS don’t necessarily offer the best people for the job, could easily turn into the old WExO posts, where someone at the end of their career fills a post to gain years on their pension.
Would also question junior/senior FTRS officers making it up Gp Capt/Air Cdre level.
There’s the obvious few,
RAF Regt → FC, Shooting, RM?
Engineering → STEM, Cyber depending on their own flair
Pilots → RAvO
I’ll be honest my understanding of RAF Officer roles isn’t that good
That I think is the problem with getting a Cmdt from the regulars, however if you make these appointments non terminal, then people are more encouraged to put effort in as it still affects their career
Who says FTRS has to be a terminal posting? I’m suggesting (like others) using this as postings for Reg/Reserve officers meaning they’d go off to do another job after
Maybe usisnf FTRS commisions might not be the best way to go but I’m more just saying that to demonstrate the parallel with Gp Capt/Air Cdre
All this debate is still overlooking the fact that regulars or FTRS won’t know what we do or how we operate. They need to understand how to manage volunteers and how to work with young people.
We’ve seen in the past that having the wrong people in senior posts leads to the enacting of policies that are inappropriate for our organisation. E.g. a six hour climatic injuries course, or six-weekly vehicle safety checks.
I stated this earlier:
Maybe we don’t want officers at all.
We want doers not managers or planners (or doctrine writers)
In many ways the ideal rank is Sgt or FS.
Giving it a bit more thought, why not simply extend the cadet training teams to support community squadrons, we could even merge the existing CTTs and make them tri service.
We have also seen other problems. Jill as an example was fantastic, and showed massive promise for our organisation. But then gets re-deployed somewhere else, so we instantly lost someone who was actively doing fantastic work.
And that’s always what happens when tradition is ditched for something designed by committee / lawyers / children.
Or at least give them a RAFAC-wide role rather than exclusively CCF.
Postings are not exclusively for the benefit of the receiving unit, but also for the benefit of the Person posted.
Very true.
A lot can happen in 6 weeks
That’s for the RAF to change, sending someone from a RAFAC OC Wg post to say a RAF Sqn OC or station ExO position would demonstate it’s not a terminal posting
Both maybe, as I think some Regular SNCO’s wouldn’t appreciate being taken from Sqn duty to being commanded by a CFAV…
not to throw shade on all SNCOs but there are bound to be a good few
The children didn’t like it either tbf
CTTs have their own chain of command (at least the Army ones do, I’ve no dealings with the RF ones)
Ahhhh so you’re not suggesting RAF SNCOs as Wg/Rgn SME’s
I completely misunderstood what you meant, all for an expansion of CTTs
But it’s unfair for @JustCallMeFlight to imply that’s an inevitable outcome.
Tradition that is unfit isn’t worth keeping. It’s a word frequently used to defend the status quo without actually defending the status quo based on merit.
There are traditions we would all happily see dispensed with, therefore “tradition” is not an argument.
Like staff immediately joining the dark side when they get a sector command
/s
No, I agree. Lots of “traditions” can get in the bin tbh.
Anyway, just to appease the curious, this was the choice, any comments on it would be a big thread drift, so let’s be mindful of that. The relevance is in asking cadets for their opinions, not the nature of the change itself.
Infrastructure and organisation that already exists. Easier to add a few more people than to start over.
a bit of a shift in thought perhaps - but to answer the question “Cadet Force expansion” should we not flip that question on its head?
Why has the Cadet Forces failed to expand through “natural progression”? i.e. a good organisation will continue to be good, and overtime grow, expand and get better
(or it will fail, get too big for its boots, collapse and fail - I do not think the CF are there).
While it is easy to suggest the Cadet Forces numbers are reducing, because the opportunities we offer Cadets are far less, or now much reduced this isn’t the case. While i do not have the data to hand, each annual review of the CF shows numbers are by and large “stable” certainly over time.
so if the organisation isn’t growing naturally, but neither shrinking it suggests that the organisation(s) are doing something right…
so perhaps the question is not about the size of the organisation, recruitment seems to be going ok. So what about the “length of service” - retention?
should we be looking at why Cadets are leaving, and if they are leaving sooner than we’d wish? it has been a long standing, unwritten myth that the “average Cadet sticks around for 18 months” - so should the question “how to expand the CF?”
be better worded as “how can we get the “average Cadet” experience to last for 24-36 months”
from this i think we have the start of an answer - and apologies for sounding like an old crusty CFAV harking back to the “good ole days” but - reinstate the USP and attractive activities Cadets joined for.
it doesn’t take much to find in the comments on ACC discussion about recruitment material is not reflective of the real Cadet experience, some CFAV/OCs choosing not to show flying/gliding and camps in their recruiting material as the number of their Cadet who get the opportunity in a year barely reaches double figures and morally struggle to recruit on the basis the organisation offers X, Y and Z when actually only 20% of the Squadron ever get chance.
It isn’t and easy task as much of what we’ve lost is through the reducing size of the RAF and MOD. It is a challenge to create an extra 20 weeks worth of annual camps when there are fewer locations to hose them.
it is a challenge to offer more gliding places when we’ve lost the numbers of VGS we once had - and while the ones we have are “active” they do not appear to be “super” as was suggested. The two our wing get places for still operate 2-3 aircraft a day, in a similar format the old VGS format was in. (ie while the suggestion that capacity would be maintained through fewer locations, it hasn’t born through - there are fewer providers (VGS) who are working at the same capacity = reduced opportunity).
TL:DR
if we can fund the activities, opportunities and attractions to retain Cadets to stay in the organisation this would have an expansion uplift.
there would then need to be a slant to introduce the “new” cutting edge side of the MOD, namely space, Cyber, UAVs etc.
the CF should be a fun experience primarily, secondly once which builds “better citizens” through teamwork, leadership, confidence, public speaking etc (all the "soft skills we deliver) if Cadets (and CFAVs) learn along the way, and pick up a badge for their brassard, and/or qualification at the same time that is a bonus in my opinion.
my worry is, if the Cadets are pushed down a STEM route too quickly, we’ll lose our USP, become an extention to schools where we’re just dressed up in a military environment/application.
Cadet numbers will increase when staff numbers increase. Staff numbers in the RAFAC are falling when the other two have rising numbers.
Many Squadron buildings are at capacity. If the fire limit is 50, you can’t have more than perhaps 40 cadets - allowing space for staff, visitors, committee meetings etc. The only way to expand, in the same building, would be to parade more nights per week with different groups of cadets. This would need double the number of staff, is only possible where it’s solely an ATC building and, quite reasonably, might be too much for many OCs (assuming it’s the same OC for both groups).
Being OC of a 40 cadet Sqn on 2 nights per week is very different to 80 cadets, 4 nights per week (flashbacks to COVID bubbles anyone?).
i do not disagree - but assumes everyone is already at 90% capacity.
this i would be willing to play a £10 bet is not the case for even half the Corps.
my suggestion is if each Squadron retained Cadets for longer (in reaction to more opportunities on offer, flying, camps, other USPs) , each would see a natural growth in Squadron size. if that was just 10% that would likely be 3-5 Cadets for most Squadrons, but see the ATC grow by ~4000 Cadets. While this is a way off the doubling suggested, it is a way the ATC can play its part…
