Changing the army - how?

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
What is colloquially referred to as Flying Pay is correctly titled "Recruiting & Retention Pay (Flying)".

The award of RRP(F) relates to your aircrew spec (pilot, navigator (now WSO I believe), Navy Observer, air engineer, winchman etc) and how long you have been serving in that role. There are also niche pay spines (Professional Aviator, for instance) further downstream.

Whether you are based at a flying station or current on a particular type is neither here nor there. Once you're awarded RRP(F), you remain awarded it unless you re-branch or elect to stay in ground duties for more than two tours.

Lastly, my observation over a fairly long period in the Joint Environment - the whole 'flying suits' thing boils down to nothing more than petty jealousy. Across the Services, aircrew have a far more demanding job, the fail rate to get to a FL Sqn is pretty horrendous, but, there's no getting away from it - the actual job of strapping a multi-million pound toy to your arse and going skywards is unsurpassed. You can - and plenty do - fail a flying trg course and then go on to a stellar career in the ground branches (of any Service). I know of numerous failed aircrew from my era who are now 1- or 2*s in other spheres. I know not of one failed infanteer, loggie, air-trafficker or J2 type who has then gone on to become a 2* pilot.

PS: The above is not to sound like an arrogant c**t by the way, I despise arrogance and personally have plenty of 'aggressively average' reports from flying courses etc that would allude to the fact that I have no grounds to be arrogant or cocky at all. I was, in fact, always rather a humble and slightly under-confident student.
I'm sure they're all jolly good sorts and everything, but having good hand-eye coordination, good 3D spatial awareness, the ability to resist G and also to multitask in a highly technical environment, while all admirable qualities in themselves, aren't necessarily uniquely special.

There are other career streams in the wider military with similar levels of stress and required concentration, similar - or even higher - wash-out rates and similarly demanding physical qualifications necessary. Quite a lot of them don't need the Queen's Commission, either.

I'm very happy indeed that fast jet drivers see themselves as an elite and have high levels of self-regard and morale, I'd be unhappy if they didn't; what does make me slightly unhappy is when they assume that the undoubted sterling qualities they bring to their work somehow magically translate across into all other spheres.

This isn't unique to these guys, of course, see here gifted generalist Army officers cuffing it like crazy when put in roles and positions for which they're laughably under- or unqualified, good RSMs tipped into the toxic swamps of a formation HQ as SO3 or SO2 Whatever, the examples are countless.

The key thing about loud folk in growbags when everyone else is wearing normal clothes is that they're annoying.
 
Last edited:

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Whether you are based at a flying station or current on a particular type is neither here nor there. Once you're awarded RRP(F), you remain awarded it unless you re-branch or elect to stay in ground duties for more than two tours.

That's the same with all RRP awarded on a 'continuous career basis'. Even when posted into a PID that doesn't earn it, you'll keep the pay for a couple of years.
 
Think you missed my point, old horse.

We rinse pilots for wearing their flying suits everywhere, when our officers wear MTP ( pyjamas and walking books, roughly equivalent to hillwalking gear ) to their office jobs for decades after they last went out on the ground.

Just as so many on Miltwitter lose their sh.it as to why the Army has barrack dress/ SD etc when it should be focussing on winning campaigns... missing the point that Telic & Herrick were planned by staff officers in Whitehall & TFH wearing DPM & MTP.

Not going to die on this hill, mind
Presumably this is to distinguish them from the Civil Servants, so no one mistakes them for such?

And as the corporate world now can’t be bothered with a tie, do officers still wear them?
 
Equally apposite here as on the other thread.

Somewhere on the "Interesting Court Martial' thread you'll find news of the incarceration (for fraud) of a former Royle Nayvee officer, narcissist and hobby skydiver by the name of Phil Gibbs (widely known in sport parachuting circles as "Glib Fibs")

Although he was never a jet jockey, I have to say - that there YouChoob skit could pretty much have been written about him.

Seriously.

@medwaymud - wot say you?
 
Somewhere on the "Interesting Court Martial' thread you'll find news of the incarceration (for fraud) of a former Royle Nayvee officer, narcissist and hobby skydiver by the name of Phil Gibbs (widely known in sport parachuting circles as "Glib Fibs")

Although he was never a jet jockey, I have to say - that there YouChoob skit could pretty much have been written about him.

Seriously.

@medwaymud - wot say you?

I remember him well.
Because he was a fellow skydiver I always greeted him cordially - but 5 minutes social chat was enough.
The epithet Glib Phibs was apt.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
This is actually a very good summary of Army 2025 from Nick (why does that sound really sarcastic), though he's far more positive about the future than any of us.

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm very happy indeed that fast jet drivers see themselves as an elite and have high levels of self-regard and morale, I'd be unhappy if they didn't; what does make me slightly unhappy is when they assume that the undoubted sterling qualities they bring to their work somehow magically translate across into all other spheres.
Ah, Lewis Hamilton Syndrome.
 
This is actually a very good summary of Army 2025 from Nick (why does that sound really sarcastic), though he's far more positive about the future than any of us.

Fail.

Simply for use of “punching above our weight”.
 
This is actually a very good summary of Army 2025 from Nick (why does that sound really sarcastic), though he's far more positive about the future than any of us.

Fail.

Simply for use of “punching above our weight”.
I think his tweets from #21 to #25 give the lie to both those assessments, because that's where he shines a (very succinct) light on the gulf between The Talk and The Walk, IMHO.

I'm also a bit surprised that (unless I missed it) he made no mention of the issues being discussed elsewhere on ArRSe around the ability to field (proper) tanks against those of near-peer enemies*

* Stonkernote: "Near-peer" is a much-used ArRSe term lately, but seems to have no standard definition. In my mind it means any nation whose economic, technological, industrial and military development should give us cause to doubt that - for us - they'd be a walkover on a conventional battlefield.
 
* Stonkernote: "Near-peer" is a much-used ArRSe term lately, but seems to have no standard definition. In my mind it means any nation whose economic, technological, industrial and military development should give us cause to doubt that - for us - they'd be a walkover on a conventional battlefield.

Cough Cough

One word - Taliban.

The problem is the words ' Conventional Battlefield '
 
Don't think for one moment that I had overlooked our recent failure. Far from it.

I am sure that you didn't, and it was not what I meant to infer.

My issue is with the term ' Conventional battlefield ' I personally do not believe in the term and believe that anyone following such a mantra is already destined to fail.

The phrase ' Fail to prepare, prepare to fail ' springs to mind.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
My issue is with the term ' Conventional battlefield ' I personally do not believe in the term and believe that anyone following such a mantra is already destined to fail.

Russia looks like it's about to reacquaint you with what a conventional battlefield looks like. There is absolutely a conventional battlefield; just because the west hasn't seen it for 19 years and the UK in particular has decided to ignore the capabilities needed to operate in it, that doesn't mean it's gone away.
 
Russia looks like it's about to reacquaint you with what a conventional battlefield looks like. There is absolutely a conventional battlefield; just because the west hasn't seen it for 19 years and the UK in particular has decided to ignore the capabilities needed to operate in it, that doesn't mean it's gone away.
Apparently all you need is the appropriate theory of winning.

Who knew?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Russia looks like it's about to reacquaint you with what a conventional battlefield looks like. There is absolutely a conventional battlefield; just because the west hasn't seen it for 19 years and the UK in particular has decided to ignore the capabilities needed to operate in it, that doesn't mean it's gone away.
Ah, the elephant in the room.
 
I am sure that you didn't, and it was not what I meant to infer.

My issue is with the term ' Conventional battlefield ' I personally do not believe in the term and believe that anyone following such a mantra is already destined to fail.

The phrase ' Fail to prepare, prepare to fail ' springs to mind.
Point taken.

Problem is that in order to know what kit you need, you have to have some reasonably fixed idea about what kind of fights you need to be able to take part in.

Sadly, IMHO our lot don't have much of a track record when it comes to realistically imagining what's coming down the line as we fumble our way into our future.

Part of me is looking at Ranger Regiment roles and wondering why we're so ready to nail our colours to the mast of roles that (arguably) represent a response to the last fight we were in, but not necessarily the next - least of all if the next one involves Russia (a near-peer opponenent, by my approximation, anyway)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Part of me is looking at Ranger Regiment roles and wondering why we're so ready to nail our colours to the mast of roles that (arguably) represent a response to the last fight we were in, but not necessarily the next - least of all if the next one involves Russia (a near-peer opponenent, by my approximation, anyway)
Because of an inability to think strategically.

FFS, there are plenty on here who show more strategic awareness than thickset with access to all the information apparently do.
 
Because of an inability to think strategically.

FFS, there are plenty on here who show more strategic awareness than thickset with access to all the information apparently do.
But they do manage to consistently convey to those who report on them, the impression that they are can-do alpha-male types who are born to lead by example . . . . or something like that.

Apparently that's very important.
 

Latest Threads

Top