Could work with 1x week parades.
regardless of what happens to RAF Reg, I hope this doesn’t happen. I also think we probably don’t need Raf reg in order to run fieldcraft in Rafac.
The other thing is Raf Reg provides a fair JTAC capability to RM and Army. Though RA could absorb this quite easily
2 Likes
Indeed. Part of our USP is we do blue and green. If we only did ‘blue’, however relevant and important cyber, space etc are, we’d be a very different organisation. We’d need, or end up with, a very different staff base.
Military skills are one of the links back to being an MOD sponsored youth org, else we’d just be a coding club.
1 Like
That’s just it, we didn’t do ‘green’ years ago as in formal fieldcraft. If someone wanted to crawl around in the mud, they joined the Army cadets, if they wanted to do more technical stuff, they joined the ATC.
2 Likes
The problem is that we use fieldcraft to deliver more skills than just the actual fieldcraft element.
Fieldcraft in the organisation needs to change and will forever be limited in scope compared to our green peers but is here to stay.
How it will look in 12-18 months let alone 5-10 years is anyones guess at the moment.
1 Like
I’ve said it before…
I’ll add that the part I’ve added bold to was potentially unfair, based on rumours of the time, and since then plenty of noise has been made about no intention to reduce or bin fieldcraft - indeed I know a lot of work is happening to further develop it.
In 50 years though… There’s potential for sufficient shift in intent to reflect broader defence changes, but we should be good for a while.
1 Like
Who knows? Directed energy weapons? X-Ray specs? Personal jet packs? Mobile Infantry out of Starship Troopers?
That said I recently had sight of a Fieldcraft manual from, I think, 1938. Most of it would be recognisable to someone picking up the current PAM.
How many cadets and CFAVs would be lost if the RAFAC dropped fieldcraft?
1 Like
Turn that question around. How many squadrons delivery ‘effective’ fieldcraft?
I’m not talking about what people think is fieldcraft, but proper FC based training 
4 Likes
Not many as we’re not allowed to!
The new pts syllabus is really clear… Any level can be delivered on Sqn… Aslong as you have quald staf… Thats the challenging bit
The quals need to be easier to achieve and proportionate to the PTS.
And wing then need to actually run them.
2 Likes
Amen!
Fieldcraft and shooting (L98) go hand-in-hand. If the RAFAC gets rid of fieldcraft, there would be no justification for retaining the cadet GP. The only shooting available would then be air rifle (about the only ‘air’ remaining in air cadets) and clay pigeon (as part of AT). Loss of fieldcraft and GP shooting would be a major disincentive to cadets and CFAVs who joined for the military youth experience.
If we got rid of shooting and fieldcraft in RAFAC then we’d be a much more civilian oriented aerospace organisation, the cadets aren’t exactly going to go on bombing runs or air combat manoeuvring whilst on AEF🤔
They will if they complete the new Diamond level on the PTS
3 Likes
Your point is unfortunately disproven by history. It’s only recently that any figure above .0025% of the organisation was able to carry a rifle in the field under RAFAC rules.
The Cadet GP has existed and been in use by us far longer.
1 Like
Considering we are only recently pushing this agenda I’m not sure it would work out well.
The org is, if anything, going to take more advantage of the service rifle in the coming years I suspect.
2 Likes
Sure.
If we can get the L103s back out to sqn hubs.
Else. Nope.