If you’re going to have different groups of cadets meeting at different times, I would suggest having two co-located sqns would make it a lot simpler (to achieve appropriate separation of staff to avoid burnout).
Of course, if I was designing things from scratch, they’d be separate flts under a single sqn cdr, who would be more akin to a sector cdr rather than being there every night.
I think youll find that UK Gov and MoD now directly view cadets as a future resource and future recruting pool.
NOT as child soldiers or recurited from cadets. So forget that line of thought.
but
And basically what im saying is… want any funding etc from MoD at all anymore… then jump to the tune being played.
We need cyber, radio and stem trained 12 to 18 year olds, so that a strong pipeline of recruitable people is available.
I hate to say it.
But its time to read the room.
War is coming and it is likely that this current generation and the next of cadets will be fighting it.
Sorry for this blunt wake up call if thats news to you.
I agree. I think we’re fast approaching the “it was too much effort not to have a war” part of Captain Blackadder’s analysis
For things like Cyber, radio and STEM, the pipeline will be trained in the specialisms as/when recruited - and what we offer in these areas is a long, long way from what employers (including the MOD) are looking for. Great that we can offer a baseline of knowledge - but we really shouldn’t pretend or kid ourselves that it’s anything more than the lowest rung on the ladder. A Blue or Bronze Space Cadet badge isn’t going to set anybody up for operating at UK Space Command in the future.
Where the CF excel - backed up by report after report - is helping to deliver a future workforce that is resilient, flexible and adaptable, with teamworking, leadership and problem solving skills. Beating them into submission through classroom based powerpoints and half hearted activities on space, radio, cyber and STEM does very little to nurture the stuff where we make a difference.
Having seen what RAFAC have done in the PTS syllabus, we aren’t even executing the Cyber, STEM or Space things well either. Schools continue to be better setup and resourced for this - executed by people who are (critically!) professionally trained to deliver these activities. Where schools struggle - but we seem to excel - is delivery of the other soft skills development - and that should remain our focus.
If we can continue to get that soft skills development stuff embedded in our practice, then the broader community and society will benefit. However, if we continue blindly down the avenue of Space, Cyber, STEM as dictating by the MOD/RAF without adequate support, training, investment or engaging activities we are going to struggle to grow as an organisation; it’s niche, it’s geeky and not necessarily what the average 12-15 year old wants to do at the weekend.
I know I’m going to sound like a broken record… but… the cadet forces as a whole needs an overhaul. Common HQ. Common core syllabus (delivered across ALL CFs irrespective of colour) with an outcome based on the soft skills development stuff to ensure this vital elements are preserved. But only then top up with associate activities around the nuanced areas of uniform colour - Space, Cyber, STEM, Radio, Sailing, Knot tying, Marine engineering (and whatever the hell the Green types get up to!) - but these shouldn’t necessarily be the FOCUS of all our activities.
This assumes that they will volunteer for the armed forces or will conscription be required?
I don’t think we should be aiming to teach at a high level. But what we should be aiming to do is inspire young people to pursue careers in STEM. So doing multi-hour long classroom lessons on STEM subject is not the way, at all. What we need is fun and engaging practical projects we can deliver to the cadets that will inspire them.
100% this.
But also 100% different from the activities they are doing in school - and that’s where we come a cropper!
The best impact we could have for those who do join up is offer enough basic training in uniform, drill, GSK, first aid, C-UAS, force protection (field craft), etc. to enable the parent service to modularise Phase 1 training and fast-stream ex-cadets, allowing them to skip the early terms (in the same way they now do at Cranwell for rankers and reservists).
Expansion is a great idea, but if by some miracle we were able to recruit the additional staff required, there needs to be development in how current staff are looked after!
More staff requires more development of staff and with how things stand currently with increasing restrictions and challenges accessing what should be basic things like SNCO appointment (yes I’m chatting about that again…. Up to 3 months waiting so far) so that staff don’t get disillusioned with the ACO and move their attentions elsewhere
I think that’s a very valid argument to be fair. The only down side is cost, if paying by rank Sgt pay starts at £44k PA, 1 Sgt per Wing is over £1.5million for the corps. However it is what you do with this resource, if that type of budget was given but the salary was £36k, (like an acting rank) freeing up a “RAFAC HQ SGT” based at Cranwell with a salary of £38k or similar. We could have 1 extra full time person per Wing plus, 1 HQ person. The Wing HQ SGT could be co-ordinating as Wing Training programme “officer”, they create the training programme by sector with dry/wet weather programmes which links into events happening on sector and Wing level. They could even take some of the RA’s (would be many duplicates, how many times when doing a set activity we put the same thing in each month!)
Don’t forget someone getting paid £44k costs significantly more than that!
£44k doesn’t sound right. Is that supp. 1 and before the latest 4.5% rise?
I don’t know that the CTT FTRS terms are, but I’d still say that the £1.5m figure suggested above would be quite good value. Albeit I’d align ‘ATC CTTs’ or expanded current CTTs with Regions not Wings.
@steve679 Definitely a lot of good sense in your comments above.
On growth, as I’ve posted before in other threads, we have no link between cadet numbers, income and so our resources. MOD funding is AFAIK largely fixed (if not reducing) so if we have more cadets our budget per cadet falls.
Subs are non public funds so can only make up the shortfall to a very limited extent. We don’t have the incentive of, say, the Scouts whose annual income goes up if they gain members.
On retention absolutely. This is one of my big concerns right now.
We need to rethink our offer so it is attractive for years 10 and up.
That means bringing back the top level courses, more camps, but maybe other changes that support progression and development.
Should we, for example, turn our (S)NCOs into Young Leaders similar to Scouts, so the extra responsibilities are seen as volunteering?
And yes cyber, space etc is all well and good, but it is unfunded. And though we are good at doing more with less, we can’t do something with nothing.
This is very much going against the direction of travel in terms of recent changes to the staff cadet ‘offer’, but 100% yes.
The point further up about building capacity is really valid too.
The other issue with such a relatively low cap for numbers is that when your cadets seem to be constantly dipping out for exams, your ability to attain compelling centre of gravity that makes a place feel like the place to be can really be a struggle.
The staff cadet policy isn’t working from what I see on the ground. Most choose to leave at 18.
I like the Young Leader model as it’s that recognition for doing a bit above and beyond the usual.
Think it’s Sqn dependent - noticed more of cadets wanting to stick around as CFAVs now but then historically as a Sqn we’ve always lost the majority of our cadets when they leave sixth form & it’s rare for a cadet to stay until they are 20.
The biggest driver to leave as a cadet always seemed to be not being treated as an adult by the staff even though they were 18 or 19
I would argue that, prior to the latest changes, an 18-20 y/o CFS/CWO had a significantly better offer of opportunities than a 20-22 y/o CI: and probably more respect.