~900 Squadrons
and lets assume all are a “Class E” with 30-45 Cadets, thus establishment guidelines (as found in ACP20) indicate
1x CWO
1x FS
4x Sgt
4x Cpl
thus a total of 10 NCOs on a “typical” Squadron
if we issue 2x sets per NCO, that is 20 sets.
on the basis the “market rate” of the closest equivalent/todays rank slide is £4 a pair (Cadet Direct link)
that is £4 x 20 sets per Squadron x 900 Squadrons = £72,000
now there are a lot of assumptions in that figure.
1 - that there are 900 Squadrons
2 - that each one is a Class E with 30-45 Cadets
3 - and those Squadrons religiously follow the establishment guidelines.
4 - it also suggest the Organisation issues 2x sets per NCO.
5 - does not take into account the CCF both in numbers (Cpl - CWO, or their LCpl Requirement)
6 - suggests that each rank slide will cost the same (ie no bulk buy discount, based on the numbers about, 4x Cpls/Sgts per Squadron is 3600 sets each, yet only a quarter (900) that number required for CWO and FS)
Yeah, this is going to blow initially £100k, with every cadet being promoted on average once a year, that’s £100k every year on rank slides alone - because you can guarentee that cadets won’t want to return their old ones, and neither should a newly promoted NCO be given an old set.
I do wonder if that imbecile has shares in an embroidery company, between this abortion and the pointless TRF he’s done more for needlework than flying.
On one hand were telling CFAVs they can’t claim VA for activities (maybe because they are at blue level), having to tell cadets we can’t do activity Y because it costs too much…or can only take x number of cadets to Activity Z because wing/region won’t authorise a coach…
…
…and spending a considerable amount of money on something that does not affect delivery.
so on the basis we’re at 43,000 cadets in total (source)
43,000 x £4 = £172,000
(or to put it another way 3x Grob 103 gliders)
almost double that!
and I agree on the basis most get promoted every 12-18 months £50-72k annual spent on keeping Cadets in the rank slide they have achieved,
the current system isn’t “broken” so what is it really trying to fix?
(I accept some suggest that it is isn’t obvious Cadets are Cadets front their rank slide alone and brings us inline with the ACF approach…but is it really “critical” expenses when as @Tornado suggests we’re told there is no money?
The bright yellow Keeling tapes remind me a lot of the lanyards that many schools give out to visitors who have to be escorted; black & yellow stripes.
It’s almost a warning for “hey, here’s some safeguarding danger! Watch out!” that’s visible from a distance.
There’s many holes in the idea, but it’s the closest I can get to anything even coming close to resembling a reasonable answer.
I did get that vibe of a highlighting of danger with the choice of colour.
Why not just have a generic long Cadet rank slide and slide the rank slide over the top. Put the word cadet at the top to stop a rank slide from sliding down covering the word Cadet and Robert is an older close family relative.
I think the problem with colour coding and, to an extent, the wording is that it doesn’t necessarily explain what it’s trying to highlight.
CADET in big letters on the rank slide is pretty obvious to anyone who understands the cadet forces exist. Anyone who doesn’t will likely understand that this person is at least untrained, as per its more general use.
But the colours and the mixing of “STAFF” and “CADET” just confuses it all for me.
I think we’ve really missed a trick by not making O18s a “PROBATIONARY INSTRUCTOR” who retain some perks while being inducted to the staff world properly to begin their transition in earnest. Give them a thin-ish white band to denote that training status and have them join the SNCOs for messing.
I’m not against the albatross for air cadets who are actually flying with a qualification and delivering a valuable output for the organisation, but if we’re spending that money, I think that should be their permanent rank slide. It effectively becomes a role indicator, as I assume it does for our CFAV?
But again, it’s been limited to just sgts and FSs, so…
