Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

Polyester

Old-Salt
Back on topic, I wonder how the RM feel about their up and coming new role and the equipment it brings. Obviously we wear what we are told when we are told but I’d be interested to hear from currently serving RM what they make of all this.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Swing role? How very nuevelle PowerPoint.

As originally envisioned, Eurofighter was a better Jaguar, a ground pounder that could hold its own in a fight over the IGB. It was never seen a a long range strategic air superiority fighter swanning around the North Atlantic facing off hordes of Backfires. Thats why its small with short legs.
Pour qui? At the time it was first dreamt up, the RAF was still looking covetously at those damn sexy BFO super fighters the USAF and USN was was getting, the F-15 and F-14 for that air superiority mission until the crappy Tornado ADV was foisted on it.

Arguing Typhoon is a very good fighter doesn't cut it, 'Typhoon' bears no resemblance to 'Eurofighter'; as originally thought up, infinite delays allowed the design to grow into a proper fighter through a myriad rethinks, but thats making a virtue out of 25 years of dicking about working out what we wanted and arguing with reluctant European 'partners'.

Typhoon entered front line service 15 years AFTER the SU-27 - it really missed the party.
If the Cold War had turned hot in the late 80's like it nearly did, the RAF would have gone to war with no viable air superiority fighters, none, not a one.

And there were more than a few in the RAF if given the option, would have walked away from the thing in the 90's when the Germans were furiously dragging out the project by more years and another redesign and bought F-15E's

One really good thing about the Eurofighter programme?
Convinced MOD finally, don't design planes with the EUropeans - with them, its all about workshare and politics and designing down to the lowest common denominator, it will always be late and over budget (lessons not learned with Jaguar and Tornado).
Bollocks.
 

Bob65

War Hero
They can't. The majority of accomodation and WiFi are contracted out so the army can't do anything with either.
Exactly. So the Army pays to train tradesmen, then has them stag on the gate, and pays again, well over the odds, for contractors to do those tradesmen's jobs, to a lower standard and never on time. This is called "leadership".
 
Exactly. So the Army pays to train tradesmen, then has them stag on the gate, and pays again, well over the odds, for contractors to do those tradesmen's jobs, to a lower standard and never on time. This is called "leadership".
In that context I think it's actually called doing what the government has told you to do.
 

Cromarty

Old-Salt
Don't know if you're RAN or not, but the RN largely lost that argument a long time back in the early 90s with the inception of FLAGSHIP which impacted catering and support, which then encroached upon engineers billets ashore. All of which as you highlight reduced shore opportunities and created a lot of issues with harmony and retention.

I don't disagree with the broad premise you highlight but equally there were, and there still are, too many places where we have been and we still do use Service Personnel in roles that aren't exploiting all of their skills/experiences and that has been a much commented factor on negative retention. Equally when we have a number of gaps at sea the seniors points out to a large cohort ashore and that's triggered analysis of which posts have to be filled by SP, which could be filled by CS and what the impacts upon harmony/retention will be.

This is tending to be in the rump of HQ or support areas and to compensate for that to ensure there are shore/harmony posts Naval Base, training establishment and Op HQ posts and a lot of engineering support organisations (in partnership with industry) will keep or enhance their sP footprint. The lessons from FLAGSHIP are understood and that harmony aspect is a key consideration as the organisation is redesigned. Time will tell how successfully. I'm not saying I agree with all of it, some I don't and I've made my views very clear but I do agree in some areas we've unnecessarily bloated.

I'm not sure I'd agree we got to a position of paying more for less capability in the 90s but the initial concept of the shore posts being filled by recent leavers or FTRS (full time reserves) only held true for a while as the civilian companies squeezed pay to manage their bottom line and there was a definite wobble for a while that self rectified when the companies were held to account for their contracts and had to provide better training and support.

No meatter how we alter things we're going to get issues with the sea/shore ratio. I've listened countless times to people who have done an 18-24m sea draft and then think they should be ashore for the next 3-5 years. The lean nature of the RN has undoubtedly led to too many people doing back to back sea drafts and the paucity of available ships and the operational tempo has driven that and created uncertainty in the lives of many. Forward basing and crew rotations, with added fat in the manning is being seen as one way to address this. Again, only time will tell.

Of course, the real answer is autonomy ;-)

Edit: Whilst slightly tongue in cheek I do think autonomy in the medium to long term may offer Navies a way to redevelop their manning model.
I was RAN. Thought I'd use actual experience. The cost isn't just money, it's the capabilities you lose while trying to paper over lost experience. That has a knock on effect that is felt for years. And some of that has to be paid for the hard way. When you send a ship, foot patrol or aircraft out on a task where the people leading haven't had the benefit of hard won corporate knowledge, people suffer. That's the real price.
 

Cromarty

Old-Salt
In that context I think it's actually called doing what the government has told you to do.
That is true but then we get to tell the government to get ******. And then comes the time the government wants a job done and the people who know how to do it aren't there. The ship can't sail, the trucks can't roll and the plane can't fly. But that's ok, you can get a contractor to do it in 6 to 12 months.
 

Cromarty

Old-Salt
Exactly. So the Army pays to train tradesmen, then has them stag on the gate, and pays again, well over the odds, for contractors to do those tradesmen's jobs, to a lower standard and never on time. This is called "leadership".
The RAN did even better. They tried to attract trade types by bringing in civilian instructors to align their training with the civvy world so they could have a certificate when they got out. Discipline went out the window, they didn't know anything about the ships systems and the useless ******* had to be retrained at sea. All this put a great strain on the poor bastards in those trades who had to do their job and that of the new guys AND teach them how everything worked and how to maintain or fix it. Sadly, there were no civvies out at sea to fix all this mess.
 
Anyway, about Future Commando Force and all their Gucci new kit.
Nah, It's a cunning plan to nick the limelight from the booties.
 
which version assorted, there were many, of ‘Eurofighter’ do you want to pick?
the original single engined little more than a GR-91 with bells and whistles concepts from 1972? The glorified Harrier concept? The rip off of the Northrop F-5? The one that looked like an F-18? Or The umpteenth design and requirement iteration after the French ‘it’s got too big‘ had stropped off And stayed with their vision of a very small lightweight ‘Eurofighter’, aka Rafale?
Typhoon as it currently exists bears no resemblance to what was originally sought. And it turned up in service loooooooong after the Cold War had ended.
all stems from - Air Staff Target (AST) 403: replacement of Harrier / Jaguar

early Hawker AST 403 concept.... not exactly an F-15 class air superiority fighter, was it?

View attachment 486748
Glad to see you following up on the pointer Pinocchio
 
I for one really like @PhotEx’s willingness to challenge the site’s orthodoxy. Even if he’s wrong, the replies And ripostes to him are often also illuminating. And he’s clearly widely read.
The Beano and Dandy are his main reading.
 
Not really seeing as I never said **** all about the RAF in the first place.
You do fod plods on non active arifields? BZ for dedication....
 
You do fod plods on non active arifields? BZ for dedication....
Why are you talking about the RAF? If bins have blown over, generally a soldier will be told to pick them up. A civvie wont.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
I was RAN. Thought I'd use actual experience. The cost isn't just money, it's the capabilities you lose while trying to paper over lost experience. That has a knock on effect that is felt for years. And some of that has to be paid for the hard way. When you send a ship, foot patrol or aircraft out on a task where the people leading haven't had the benefit of hard won corporate knowledge, people suffer. That's the real price.
We're not trying to denude the operational experience, we simply want to recruit and use people properly. One of the biggest retention points has been people properly mis-employed. If a job needs a SP and we can evidence that we will, if it's more sensible to be done in another way we'll look at that.
 
Back on topic, I wonder how the RM feel about their up and coming new role and the equipment it brings. Obviously we wear what we are told when we are told but I’d be interested to hear from currently serving RM what they make of all this.
Something along the lines of....”WOO-Hoo!....Gucci....shiny.....WOO-HOO!
 
Why are you talking about the RAF? If bins have blown over, generally a soldier will be told to pick them up. A civvie wont.
It's because the discussion about litter was picked up by a crab who relayed an imaginary conversation between two crusty crabs. I pointed out that a Station WO really ought to be bothering about litter, as it becomes FOD, and that has a direct impact on the operational effectiveness of his unit.

Sorry.
 
And . . . regrettably . . . another - once interesting - thread is taken off "WATCH" :( .
 
It's because the discussion about litter was picked up by a crab who relayed an imaginary conversation between two crusty crabs. I pointed out that a Station WO really ought to be bothering about litter, as it becomes FOD, and that has a direct impact on the operational effectiveness of his unit.

Sorry.
I see, so if the was litter flying around an RAF camp due to bins falling over, they wouldnt wait 36 hours for the contractor to turn up? which is what Alamo said.
 

Latest Threads

Top