For clarity’s sake, it’s definitely gone forever now?
My understanding is that the HQ leadership courses would be reviewed and likely merged in to another entity. Not sure anyone knows what that looks like yet and it may even keep the JL name.
1 Like
I’ll bet my bottom dollar it will be classroom based, less fun and cheap!
2 Likes
i could imagine it being “less dynamic” - despite what some QJL thought, it was a “leadership” course and not a “fieldcraft” course.
Fieldcraft was just the platform, and an obvious military one, to adopt to demonstrate leadership (and teamwork).
any replacement will still need to do the same, but could be an extension to “hanger leadership exercises” which have been done for years at Cranswell/OASC etc.
(where rather than testing/analysing leadership skills, the kit and scenarios are used as teaching aids to demonstrate and build on leadership skills)
While any replacement should be cheaper, it shouldn’t necessarily be less “fun” - just a different way of demonstrating how to apply the skills taught.
I am sure many of us have taken courses in work which include “break out rooms/groups” and had to design and build a bridge out of rudimentary kit (dry spaghetti etc) or had to build a balloon powered car or similiar type stuff. these classroom based exercises and are completed within 60 minutes and so far easier to complete than a full weekend exercise in a DTE - however i am not “for” this style of classroom demonstration, it needs to be sitting somewhere in the middle (like the hanger exercises), certainly getting out of the classroom.
it could have a much more STEM bias, changing the tyre on a car, or perhaps the jeep strip and rebuild task (made Cadet friendly). to make it more RAF have an aviation application…
2 Likes
When I failed RCB (as AOSB used to be called) we had a field gun trial type race between two teams, except is wasn’t an actual gun but easily assembled / dissembled components that, when put together correctly, looked like a gun. I’m thinking something similar.
1 Like
exactly the field gun is another great example. it is a “military application” and fits a teamwork/leadership task.
it is also STEM orientated, some of the course could be spent teaching the STEM elements of the gun, either its workings, or the engineering behind it (material choice, manufacturing methods etc) or the physics of the firing (how much charge is used = how much bang = distance travelled, the projectile being used, weight, shape and size etc, and the angle required to hit a target, all physics and maths there)
Seems a no brainer
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure some of the CCFs have the field gun ‘kits’.
4 Likes
There are probably some that have actual field guns.
I know of one or two that have sizeable collection of equipment from the civil war so could certainly equip a good number of cadets with genuine armour, pikes & swords.
a field gun which they fire during inspections I can well believe 
1 Like
I believe the Sea Cadet, have had some replica field guns made, that they use. I haven’t seen one. But a few years ago we had one made, and it works well and is good fun.
2 Likes
It is a no brainer and would work incredibly well…until someone had a ‘gut feeling’ it could be dangerous.
I’ve seen one before, that was a Spitfire.
Cadets taking the aircraft out of a trailer, and racing to assemble it before flight. While a cadet scrambles to put the flight kit on…
The ACF also took part as well when this happened in 2013.
Have a close look at the SCC and their competitions this year and consider they are far smaller that the RAFAC.
2 Likes
Field gun has been done recently in this Wing.
1 Like
So: can of worms alert.
Some CCFs (notably Wellington) have done Field Gun for years with a ‘real’ one. That’s a bit risky - as the gun is very heavy - but if it’s done on school premises the Head can and does authorise it.
A few years back (maybe as many as 10) an enterprising former Master Gunner, now a CCF officer, worked with a carriage maker to make a ‘cadet field gun’ with a lightweight barrel. He trained a number of CCF units to do this as a ‘school activity’. This caught on and was popular - rightly so, as it is a superb activity blending teamwork, intelligence and fitness and with just enough risk to be challenging, but enough control measures to make it safe. I am a huge fan - and I got trained as an instructor by him.
Initially the Army were sceptical - e.g. I know one CCF who was refused permission to use public funds to purchase a gun because they had no RN section and it wasn’t an Army activity.
About 2/3 years ago the RN decided to make it official, and introduced a pamphlet and a 1-day course and qualification. Cue grumpiness from those of us who had been safely conducting the activity for years but to be fair, they agreed to exempt us from the training course and after a bit of faff the RN sent a very helpful CPO to assess me so I am now qualified with grandfather rights on the training.
Meanwhile, the Army got wind of this, and how popular it was, and gently introduced the activity - my daughter, for example, was in a field gun team on Army camp in 2023 with qualified instructors, authorised kit etc. (The early ‘cadet’ field guns need some small modifications to meet the current standard, all of which I agree with and have enhanced safety).
But: RAFAC has to date refused to include Field Gun in a list of authorised activities. This meant that I was refused T&S or VA to attend a training course, and also that it cannot be carried out by CCF(RAF) off school premises. There’s a hint of ‘not invented here’ if you ask me: unless someone seriously wants to say that the RN/SCC and Army are not able to safely assure an activity to our standards. Hang on, that reminds me of something.
5 Likes
It sounds like the RAFAC MT policy where they attempt everyone to match RAF even CCF where it doesnt apply
1 Like
It’s listed in ACP 300 and ACTO 10. Sussex has one, and it gets used as linked above.
Must be recent, then - the refusal of VA and T&S was only about a year ago
I wonder if this was as part of the review of activities that would and wouldn’t be funded, even if approved?
I recall that even activities that HQAC wanted to encourage they also weren’t going to fund.
It was added to ACTO 10 in 2020 after a review to bring the activities list in line with what was in ACP 300. It’s been listed in ACP 300 since at least 2017, which is the earliest version of ACP 300 I can find.
1 Like