Yes - and probably either more paid staff (perhaps TEST equivalent) or a way of paying our existing CFAV who are willing to be trained up in a way more akin to the Reserves.
As @Farmerdan says the mechanism is there in the VR(T).
Probably a thread drift, can someone on a PC can split it?
Or existing CFAV who are ex-Forces who can be refreshed.
Anyone get the feeling that it’s the sort of thing dreamed up by air officers without any conversation with the Secretary of State nor any consideration for the political impact of it? (Especially considering the next decade is likely to be a Labour Government)
An uncharitable person/politician/journalist would argue that the expansion of the Cadet Forces into Schools combined with a change of role to prepare children for military service makes us into a modern day Hitler Youth.
We (the UK) is already complained about on an international level because we allow people to join the forces at 16. This would make it worse…
I remember thinking something similar while reading the Astra ACP. While I don’t think it was explicit, part of me did think that there was a push to move from being a youth organisation that develops young people to become a pre-service cyber and space training school.
Like you, I wouldn’t want to be here for that change, however it might not be so obvious. Is it happening already?
Indeed, recognition of prior experience should be a given.
I don’t it would ever happen. The RAF isn’t going to be expanding any time soon and the number of people we take on in those roles is tiny compared to a- the number of people in the RAF, and b- the number of people in the ATC.
Those trades combined probably add up to no more than ~1000/1500, and that would include people who’ve been in for twenty years. Fully half the people in the RAF were never in cadets and they all manage the training just fine…
Training 30,000 kids in space command gubbins would be a colossal waste of time.
Looks like someone has already got there
I don’t know anything about this site and their About page is less than revealing so best treat with caution.
You assume they want to be ‘refreshed’?
Who change the name to Komsomol or Young Pioneers.
Uniform to be just MTP (or current combat equivient) and badge as Army Air Corps under a ‘purple’ cadet force.
While these comparisons are undoubtedly outlandish and usually made by deliberately controversial or extreme commentators (and ignoring the satirical dig at Labour as long as no one develops it into a full political rant)…
We already see/hear “child soldiers” and things like that (see here from Vice) online and occasionally in person. “Brainwashing and indoctrination” are used as well. If the organisation swings too much in a direction it opens up increasingly accurate and loud protestations. If the ACF also moves toward a streaming/fast track idea it would draw even more attention and criticism - but that is possibly less necessary or likely.
It may not care ultimately care if these things do happen - the org shrinks and becomes cheaper, but still attracts those it wants to, probably increasing the average aptitude.
All conjecture based on potentially inaccurate inferences, but things are being said and decisions made, plans announced, all without any counter justification given. It’s hard not to start seeing things line up a certain way.
If anything, the “open to all” and “civilian life” focusses we have also garner a lot of good will toward the RAF. If these erode enough then our parent service has no community based PR machine with its name on considering it doesn’t have its own presence.
I saw this posted the other day onTwitter
This was regarding six years olds visiting a police station.
What the reaction would be to the cadet forces I shudder to think. It was for this reason why we emphasis the target aspect of the target shooting.why there was politicial concern around the L98A2 (& the reason why we had the L98A1) in the first place.
Considering some of the more infamous air cadets (thinking of the ex-cadet who fired blanks at the Queen due to not getting a marksman badge) if the organisation is not more political savvy about the social benefit of the cadets then it will not be able to deliver some of the more military morally ambiguous aspects.
I actually think a purple cadet force is a good idea but ONLY above Wing level or similar. i.e. cut lots of the top jobs to save money (and share admin). Keep separate identities at the grassroots level and crucially separate uniforms.
Would all end up being controlled by the Army.
although I don’t disagree the Army is likely to be the default leader…
do we not already see a split in management with the CCF?
straddling both camps are they not already “purple” and so a case of learning how that system works and expanding it out across the full CF?
I think some of the issues CCF(RAF) have is that they have input from both the ATC & The army on how they are meant to be run & at times the army takes precedence.
Purple could work
For reason of seniority it would be nice if the RN could lead (but the current SCC structure probably prevents that - do CCF RN sections come under SCC or are they directly under RN control?)
If we had a cap badge/service agnostic cadre of CFAVs then we could bring in courses from each of the services. It wouldn’t matter to me if my 2ic was a PO and Fieldcraft led by an army CFAV.
But to avoid complexity the cadets would probably need to have one section and one uniform (plus one set of ranks and one drill manual). Trying to run single service sections at the community level would be tricky due to numbers and space.
OR have a common cadet curriculum at junior level (probably Army led) and allow specialism in air or sea at equivalent to Leading level.
From the CCF(RAF) side of the fence the only Army interaction I experience is when my CC is CCF(A) or I go as Staff to an Army FTX or Central Camp.
Day to day it’s all RAFAC. Others MMV of course.
CCF in a nutshell…
‘There is no such thing as the CCF, only CCFs’
One of my two truisms.
