Has the ATC outgrown the RAF?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
1

Or, more appropriately, has the RAF ‘outshrunk’ the ATC?

The defence budget is beyond stretched. The facilities and resources are at breaking point for the regulars, never mind the reserves, and with the cadets coming way down the list.

More and more activities are being curtailed because the RAF simply doesn’t have the resources to spare.

The post-cold war draw down of the RAF is still ongoing, almost all the stations I visited during my time as a cadet and as staff have closed now, leaving only a few sites across the entire country.

The availablity of any given resource is at best a post code lottery.

None of this is the fault of the RAF. They of course have to prioritise the defence of the nation, that is both right and proper.

Private, external bodies can more than match the current offering from the RAF - and in some cases can surpass it.

Is it time the ATC went back to it’s ADCC roots and became a private charity, away from the auspices of the RAF?

As much as I’ve recently left, I’m still reading about all the noise, all the pain, all the unnecessary admin, the headaches, the poor comms, the often unfathomable decision making, and I can’t help but think there’s no benefit anymore.

Would becoming a non-RAF aligned body stop all that? No, of course not. But would it help in a lot of cases? I believe yes.

5 Likes
2

The only logical option is to move to an SCC model of independent charity with a grant from the RAF.

We can’t afford to lose any more activities because of the RAF’s “leadership”, or budget issues, or inadequacy.

9 Likes
3

The other option would be to come out of the RAF command structure and move directly under a tri-service command.

I think this is old but it shows a Joint Cadet Secretariat from the CCF side.

IMG_1043
IMG_10431151×1969 125 KB

It would mean transferring the risk out of 22 Group, harmonising cadet forces policies particularly at a ODH level & probably be more efficient on personnel e.g.

  • Single safe guarding team
  • Single MT policy team
  • Single security advice team
  • Single policy team on cadet shooting
  • Tri service Small arms training teams
  • single first aid training policy.
  • single supply process.
10 Likes
4

Sure coming away from raf would have mutual benefits, as while the RAF do appreciate RAFAC i am sure we can be a distraction from their day job.

5

Cadets will always be a distraction & secondary duty. It’s why we are part of 22Grp now as they have the training mindset & can see how the training as a cadet flows into training as a reservist or as a regular.

1 Like
6

That is a very good point and agree, however not all cadets go into the military so it is a bit of a gamble, guess there is no aimple answer that suits everyone

1 Like
7

Not all that’s true but it means you can test training methodologies on a group first & see how it works before trying it with the paid personnel.

I imagine this is why the CLP are so much more bureaucratic now days as the feed into the OSP if a cadet joins as a regular.

8

But we are not guinea-pigs to experiment with

2 Likes
9

I’m sure this has been said before, in other threads, but part of the issue is how we raise revenue and how it doesn’t allow us to grow.

The RAF funds part of what we do, but that is largely seen as a cost. More cadets equals more costs, or at least more pressure on a finite budget. You then end up with having to ration out resources (people, equipment, premises) out of that budget.

At the same time we charge subs, so on paper as we recruit more cadets we should have more funds. Most of those funds stay at squadron level though and can’t be used to fund staffing, or a lot of centralised facilities.

I would be very reluctant to cut ties to the RAF as it goes give us facilities and access, as well as a sense of purpose. That said the SCC model, where IIRC the Marine Society (representing the merchant navy side) is worth looking at.

The ideal might be a set up where we have an incentive to grow and can use our own funding to cover the costs of that growth, but keeping the RAF funding and links for the things that only they can provide.

10

The problem is I’m really not sure what these are anymore, especially not for the majority.

1 Like
11

Hmm depends…as long as it’s win-win

The combat air power presentations use to use air cadets to iron out any of the bugs & get the presenters use to how to do things ahead of all the vips attending.

Troops got a dress rehearsal which needed to be real, cadets got loads of input & kit try out.

Coming back to topic I think the RAF has had some horrendous few years with recruitment scandals, issues around the red arrows, costs over etc leading it to feel a bit disjointed internally.

throw in the positive disruptor of cadet world in you get a desync between the RAF & cadets & diverging priorities.

Ironically part the RAFs desync might have been over inclusivity of cadets into ASTRA.

This meant the Astra path was steered away from what the RAf needed to move forward & prevented cadet world from realigning with them.

2 Likes
12

Perhaps as also desync the ODH a little.

Public funded activities (flying/shooting etc) - ODH is AOC 22 Group

Non-public funded activities- ODH is CAC/CoS?

It means if we want to cadets to go to a trampoline park or other activity you don’t have to get an AVM to wade through a business case on bouncy castles, laser tag etc when they are trying to sort out the training for basic pilot training.

1 Like
13

Yet organisations that don’t innovate inevitably die. So there has to be some guinea-pigging at some point.

Side note: guinea pigs taste damn delicious.

4 Likes
14

The main ones are
Flying (yes I know …)
Shooting (albeit, it’s only really the service rifle that can’t be done outside MOD)
Use of defence estate (ranges, fieldcraft, AT)
Access to RAF stations
Some parts of radio & cyber
Uniforms, including the right to wear them

Might be others, and of course the ratio of RAF input on each of the above varies.

1 Like
15

I genuinely don’t think there’s anything on that list that can’t be provided by external bodies in a better way than what’s currently on offer from the RAF.

And again, to be clear, I don’t necessarily think any of this is a slight on the RAF. They’ve been stretched to the limit for years - I know, I was in it! This is about what’s best for both orgs.

1 Like
16

It’s called the RAF Air Cadets for a reason and something I am fiercely proud of. We fund RAFAC and it is the right thing to do. Indeed, I want even closer links and so do we all…30% of graduates from CWL/ HAL are ex-RAFAC (it varies, this is a good ‘cooking average’ for now). There are many reasons why a widespread expansion of flying / gliding to civ means is not a preferred choice but a po we fully reason is that it is not the link to RAFAC I think is vital. The roundal. The front gate at the Stn. The uniforms you see. The ‘chat’. This is what I think the link provides…and a significant amount of funding.

3 Likes
17

It is this week…

I’ve been involved with it in one form or another for over 25 years and its had 3 different names, so you’ll forgive me for thinking that it doesn’t matter.

What matters is that it’s the Air Training Corps.

30% of people going through Cranwell and Halton are from cadets? Great, genuinely. I was one.

But that means 70% aren’t. The majority of people in the RAF have not been in cadets. Are the majority of the people in the RAF worse at their jobs as a result…? If the answer is no (and it is) then the 30% stat is nice, but completely irrelevant.

3 Likes
18

It used to be 50%, and I believe only around a decade ago. Why has it dropped so significantly?

19

Nope.

20

Not an answer, but thank you for playing along.

4 Likes