This is certainly a simple option that comes up often. Reflect our essential training with progression through the most junior ranks available to the parent service.
We could award “Cadet AR” upon completion of Junior Cadet (perhaps to be renamed), then “Cadet AS2” upon completion of a new first class programme, and finally AS1 for completion of a new Leading Cadet Programme.
After that, roles based upon leadership.
What if we split them, so the more greens-y activities go on the blanking plates, and the more blues-y go on the brassard?
Badges on greens does cause problems for CCFs though, who wear badges of both plates already.
I’d say any badge worth having should be visible whenever we show badges. I’d include flying badges within that, and would like to see a metal badge for wearing when not in jumpers.
I wouldn’t have, for example, a field craft badge that is only worn on green. I just don’t see the point.
I can understand that point, but I’ve found it irritating whenever you meet new people in greens you really can’t tell much about what they know/have done. I’ve never really understood why fieldcraft didn’t get a badge at all, regardless of where it could go.
Where you would need to be careful is that at the moment it’s it a requirement to have Leading Cadet to be a Corporal, it’s a suggestion and generally a good one, but a I wouldn’t want to see a situation where it becomes mandated and ties an OC’s hands.
The syllabus was a cluster at the time which probably had a lot to do with it, it’s also never really been part of our core offer and while I wouldn’t suggest it there is an argument that anything beyond aggressive camping is what the ACF is for and shouldn’t fall to us to deliver.
I always squirm at this suggestion.
Leadership skills should not be restricted to NCOs. An NCO course is how to use leadership skills and fulfil the duty, having the theory knowledge and skills should be kept separate.
Agreed. This comes back to my thoughts that we try to provide too much and be all things to all people.
If our wings and regions focussed on using our volunteers to smash just a couple of core things out of the park, with leadership development being a big one, then we could reliably progress cadets through that development and then tie promotions to those significant experiences.
And yet, until very recently, the parent service called its promotion courses the Junior / Intermediate / Advanced / Higher Leadership Course. Interestingly, they’re now called Aviator Development 1/2/3/4.
Maybe we should follow suit, merge leadership and ‘NCO’ courses and call them Cadet Development courses (with no rank requirement to attend)?
It’s not a bad shout.
Similar to how IOD could be a real pain at the DefAc because normally I would have a chunk of time to do a couple of those courses relatively close together, but then by the time the year of enforced gap was done I’d be too busy deploying etc to go for another couple of years! Took me ages to get through them.
So scrub the NCO courses then, we don’t need duplication.
Leadership courses should be both theory and application
Yes it was all done by myself. It was just a idea but i really like the fact of having a AS1 and AS2 rank or even just for the sakes of lining better with other cadet forces having a junior cpl rank like in the CCF
Here is a mock up i made. You could also have a circal around them if there flight staff cadets bit like the AS1 (Tec) Rank slide. Also you could lock staff cdt so you have to be a cpl minimum.
We’ve been awarding them for a few years now, but they are in camo, so you can’t see them.
Potentially silly question but how would we refer to a Cadet AS2/AS1 day to day?
I don’t particularly like the idea of referring to them as "AS1 Bloggs” or “Air Specialist Bloggs”, unless we just agree to continue referring to them as ‘Cadet Bloggs’ seeing as AS2/AS1 aren’t NCO ranks?
I don’t see why we would need Cdt AS1(T), given afaik that’s only used in engineering trades? So for us the only obvious parallel would be the cyber/radio syllabus? Using it for FSCs would be inappropriate, given AS1(T) is not an aircrew rank. In the same way I don’t think the ATC should use LCpl seeing as it’s only a RAF Reg rank for the parent service.
I generally like the idea of introductory ranks though, if only to make things easier for the (admittedly increasingly rare) staff cadet cadets you find out in the wild
Also, if the issue with the brassard is too many badges, let’s bin off music for a start. The vast majority of cadets don’t actually learn music on squadrons, they just get a blue badge for having a grade 3 externally.
Sure, some will go onto join the national bands/pipes and drums, but I’d still wager that the majority of these cadets weren’t trained from the ground up by RAFAC.
It feels like a wasted slot, especially given how central it is, and to an extent a socio-economic divider. The rich kids whose parents could pay for music lessons get a badge, the rest don’t. I’d be curious to see the proportion of cadets across the corps with music badges, and at what levels.
Don’t see any benefits, there are no equivalents & it’s hard enough at times getting a cadet to transition to cpl rank, never mind having an indeterminate level (or 2!).
Very subjective, but we have cadets across the range of the social strata, some started music at home, some at school. Not my prime subject matter, but we have had a few cadets who have began from scratch on the sqn.
Personally, I’d adapt them to Air Cadet Recruit / ACR or just recruit, Air Cadet (Class 2) / AC2, and Air Cadet (Class 1) / AC1 (who could both be addressed as cdt). I think the SCC does something similar.
Completely agree.
Personally, I think we should have lcpls in the RAFP and intelligence profession, to give parity with RMP / INT CORPS and do away with the confusion of substantive cpls managing a/cps in the RAFP. In such circumstances, it would make sense to also have them across the rest of the RAF (potentially replacing AS1(T)?) and the ATC rather than introducing more differences to rank structures between professions.
The a/cpl status for RAFP was (is) applied to give the required rank status for dealing with most circumstances for equivalent (cpl) or below in order to able to question / detain such ranks.
