Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

manning levels, the future.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    T

    More often than not when they do, they are then offered commissions and taken out of the line in the actual repair and running of systems and transferred to management ,which has its merits from a personal development and has pros and cons to the service.
    Yes we had them in the NS coming straight from NCO Tech 1 ,mainly, but if a candidate does a degree the conditions after commissioning can be altered at the stroke of a pen to fill an appropriate Technical vacancy. The example of what is possible was ab initio we had an RN CERA commissioned and went on to be a commander Engineer. We continue to paint ourselves into corners instead of solving the problem as we did then in the 1940's.

    Comment


    • The current TTS competition is for:

      Engr Electricians
      Engr Carpenter
      Engr Plumber
      CIS Technicians
      Tpt Heavy Vehicle Mechanic
      Ord Armourer
      Ord Armament Artificer Instrument
      Printing Press

      The CIS and Ordnance do a Level 7 degree, the remainder do trade exams (SOLAS, C&G, NVQ etc)

      Comment


      • Perhaps the solution then is to create another level just for those with trades or specialist skill, between Officer and Senior rate? It could get around having to promote people away from their trade too.
        Was aboard one of the newer vessels lately, Eng Offr was a DE who had learnt the ropes(or spanners) on General cargo and ferries, where you didn't always have a mech to do the dirty work. Very hands on as a result, knew the engine room as if he had built it himself, knew all its strengths and weaknesses. Would not be the type happy to drive a desk between appointments at sea. Couldn't see him being a class officer for a recruit platoon. Could see him instructing mechs and tiffys in training.
        We need to keep these people for the long term. Not just a short 5 years till their cadet replacements are trained up.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          Perhaps the solution then is to create another level just for those with trades or specialist skill, between Officer and Senior rate? It could get around having to promote people away from their trade too.
          Was aboard one of the newer vessels lately, Eng Offr was a DE who had learnt the ropes(or spanners) on General cargo and ferries, where you didn't always have a mech to do the dirty work. Very hands on as a result, knew the engine room as if he had built it himself, knew all its strengths and weaknesses. Would not be the type happy to drive a desk between appointments at sea. Couldn't see him being a class officer for a recruit platoon. Could see him instructing mechs and tiffys in training.
          We need to keep these people for the long term. Not just a short 5 years till their cadet replacements are trained up.
          What they should be doing to try to keep Senior tech ratings is CFR

          They are taking on DE L/EA with a level 6/7 (so I assume that is what the TTS/apprenticeship gives them). DE NS Engineer officers have to have a level 8, cadets/OUT do a level 7.

          Keep capable Trained and skilled people in the NS, give them career progression to officer rank, higher salaries, (arguably) better pay and conditions. Good for retention

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            Perhaps the solution then is to create another level just for those with trades or specialist skill, between Officer and Senior rate? It could get around having to promote people away from their trade too.
            Was aboard one of the newer vessels lately, Eng Offr was a DE who had learnt the ropes(or spanners) on General cargo and ferries, where you didn't always have a mech to do the dirty work. Very hands on as a result, knew the engine room as if he had built it himself, knew all its strengths and weaknesses. Would not be the type happy to drive a desk between appointments at sea. Couldn't see him being a class officer for a recruit platoon. Could see him instructing mechs and tiffys in training.
            We need to keep these people for the long term. Not just a short 5 years till their cadet replacements are trained up.
            You are on the right track. The key thing is to not build a Frankenstein, but leave most appointments within grades open to all those that can do the job or gain the training to do it. Promoting skilled personnel out of their area of expertise is a lose, lose situation. MN engineers usually came up through an apprenticeship in dockyards or heavy engineering works like CIE of yore. They always did the work on normal ships especially tramps. On liner runs they were often assisted by Chinese fitters, very officer like, white boiler suits and ranked 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 4th. but the penalty for that was little downtime for your ship as they did all the compulsory running Survey work while most others were asleep.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              What they should be doing to try to keep Senior tech ratings is CFR

              They are taking on DE L/EA with a level 6/7 (so I assume that is what the TTS/apprenticeship gives them). DE NS Engineer officers have to have a level 8, cadets/OUT do a level 7.

              Keep capable Trained and skilled people in the NS, give them career progression to officer rank, higher salaries, (arguably) better pay and conditions. Good for retention
              If you progress them to officer rank they will end up Class officer of a recruit platoon/pots course for a few months and will be out the gate as soon as it's over.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • What they should be doing to try to keep Senior tech ratings is CFR
                No for two reasons

                (a) once you lose them from the ranks you have in effect lost their speciality as they become management as opposed to work force
                (b) pay structure is different and the equating pay grade to a CPO with 15 years service would mean you need to probably put him in as Lt (NS ) rank up setting the balance in ranks.

                Perhaps the solution then is to create another level just for those with trades or specialist skill, between Officer and Senior rate? It could get around having to promote people away from their trade too.
                Two ways of going about it, the RN way or the US Army way

                The RN recruit people directly into trades without them serving recognised apprenticeships and train them accordingly in the role and promote them within the trade. So instead of a General Service enlistment, a guy is a tradesman from day one, does his basic in that role and goes to sea from the day he graduates as a recruit and works through a grading system

                The US army has Warrant officer pilots who do the job as pilots paid a suitable salary without being 'management, again come in as potential pilots pass out on the basics and work up to two or three grades unique to the pilots.

                Having the larger divisions absorb the majority of the recruits, used to be Mechs and Executive branch in the day tended to put a lot of round pegs in square holes, profile people prior to recruitment directly into where you need them and train them in that role.

                Keep capable Trained and skilled people in the NS, give them career progression to officer rank, higher salaries, (arguably) better pay and conditions. Good for retention
                Up to a point its good for morale but not everyone is cut out to manage as opposed to do the actual physical work. I would suggest reducing the cadet time, get rid of the University time and fast track candidates into the various branches and commission them into the role within 9 to 12 months of enlistment, further education such as degrees can be applied for after 2 years of service after commissioning

                What does need to happen is that when ships come along side for refits.. everybody off and shore parties take over the running of ships and all associated duties, running people at duties one in three is killing morale and worth no money to the people carrying them out while posted to ships.

                Scrap income tax and levies on PDA and all general service enlistments carry out a min of 3 years of their first 5 year engagement posted to a ship to include the recruit training period.

                But the problem being that major changes as suggested will upset the status quo in bot Seniors Rates and Officers to a degree that i would be unworkable or unofficially blocked.
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  If you progress them to officer rank they will end up Class officer of a recruit platoon/pots course for a few months and will be out the gate as soon as it's over.
                  As Tech officers? When the NS needs MEOs to put operational units back at sea, to manage maintenance of ships alongside, to instruct and manage TTS/apprentice training ?

                  Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                  No for two reasons

                  (a) once you lose them from the ranks you have in effect lost their speciality as they become management as opposed to work force
                  (b) pay structure is different and the equating pay grade to a CPO with 15 years service would mean you need to probably put him in as Lt (NS ) rank up setting the balance in ranks.



                  Two ways of going about it, the RN way or the US Army way

                  The RN recruit people directly into trades without them serving recognised apprenticeships and train them accordingly in the role and promote them within the trade. So instead of a General Service enlistment, a guy is a tradesman from day one, does his basic in that role and goes to sea from the day he graduates as a recruit and works through a grading system

                  The US army has Warrant officer pilots who do the job as pilots paid a suitable salary without being 'management, again come in as potential pilots pass out on the basics and work up to two or three grades unique to the pilots.

                  Having the larger divisions absorb the majority of the recruits, used to be Mechs and Executive branch in the day tended to put a lot of round pegs in square holes, profile people prior to recruitment directly into where you need them and train them in that role.



                  Up to a point its good for morale but not everyone is cut out to manage as opposed to do the actual physical work. I would suggest reducing the cadet time, get rid of the University time and fast track candidates into the various branches and commission them into the role within 9 to 12 months of enlistment, further education such as degrees can be applied for after 2 years of service after commissioning

                  What does need to happen is that when ships come along side for refits.. everybody off and shore parties take over the running of ships and all associated duties, running people at duties one in three is killing morale and worth no money to the people carrying them out while posted to ships.

                  Scrap income tax and levies on PDA and all general service enlistments carry out a min of 3 years of their first 5 year engagement posted to a ship to include the recruit training period.

                  But the problem being that major changes as suggested will upset the status quo in bot Seniors Rates and Officers to a degree that i would be unworkable or unofficially blocked.
                  MEO May be the manager but they are also an engineer so that they can be retained for everyone interests and contribute back into those coming behind them. In the same way that they may be an instructor in x, y and z. It means than for some there will be a way of providing better conditions for their families and retaining their skills in the NS.

                  The big advantage being that they are already expert in the Exact equipment and the vessels, where as a DE isn’t.

                  Not 100% sure if the NS are doing apprenticeships or TTS these days.

                  I’m not suggesting that all techs should be commissioned rank or that all techs should be Commissioned as they progress.

                  Do we need a new rank structure? IMHO no just more doing

                  The NMCI is a double edged sword, IMHO it is the SSC return for investment that is the issue.

                  CPO is a SNCO. Army SNCOs are commissioned as Captains (equivalent to Lt (NS)).

                  I’m not suggesting massive CFR NS courses run every year. Maybe 5 CFRs every 5 years especially to fill tech specifically MEO appointments.

                  Is the time now? No, why?

                  There aren’t enough techs as is so promoting them out isn’t going to help that unless it meant that the retirement age was higher (it’s probably lower). The time for this was really the 2008-2010 period. Hopefully NS manning will be fixed in the next 10 years

                  Comment


                  • The big advantage being that they are already expert in the Exact equipment and the vessels, where as a DE isn’t.
                    Not really as you take out a Chief ERA, thats what his qualification is.. an ERA.. not an Engineer, DEs can be converted a trained quicker than backfilling vacancies created by CFRS once you lose one to the management side you need back fill.

                    Do we need a new rank structure? IMHO no just more doing
                    Rank structure among Techs to be a paygrade as opposed to having to commission guys to improve their conditions which in reality is what promotion is all about.

                    CPO is a SNCO. Army SNCOs are commissioned as Captains (equivalent to Lt (NS)).

                    You need to be promoting guys from PO rank and earlier if you are going to CFR, a ERA with a degree is not automatically an MEO and will need to bed in, thus shortening his longevity in the role.

                    As Tech officers? When the NS needs MEOs to put operational units back at sea, to manage maintenance of ships alongside, to instruct and manage TTS/apprentice training
                    Never know a EO to train classes of recruits but then again if you were to stream the intakes directly into the different branches there would be a requirement for same
                    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      In a historic sense there was always a tendency for those involved in equipping the PDF with a skills base to offload structures and systems in favour of a ready made solution from civilian 3rd Level Insts. or Universities. The major loss was that inducted personnel had a civilian ethos which by and large wasn't replaced in a deep militarising training programme. We got rid of the Apprentice School and didn't sustain or modernise front edge capabilities in any of the support services such as Aer Corps and Naval Service. We are now confronted by the cyber world and world contagion, and in the latter matter prepared for the eventuality by closing down medical facilities and a coherent staff. What we do and what we've always done is based on the theory that " there will be no fire tonight".
                      In 1989/1990 a few of us were tasked to draw up a new organisational structure for the Naval Service . At that time we were a seven ship navy plus the Diving School and emerging units created by satellite and digital technologies. If I remember rightly the strength figure deemed needed was in the region of 1200. Since then we have stricken 4 ships and added 6 new ships without a realistic adjustment to required Establishment. On the basis of plus two ships we needed to add at least another 4 crew equivalent to give an Establishment figure of 1380. The Tables were designed to give strength requirement for each ship type so that an increase / decrease in ships numbers would see an automatic adjustment in those strengths. Likewise the Seagoing Replacements Table was to be adjusted in a similar manner allowing two crews for each ship. The organisational Group had a preference for a higher crew Replacement ratio at three crews for each ship. The fact that current strength is below 1000 is a matter of deep concern for operational certainties.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        In 1989/1990 a few of us were tasked to draw up a new organisational structure for the Naval Service . At that time we were a seven ship navy plus the Diving School and emerging units created by satellite and digital technologies. If I remember rightly the strength figure deemed needed was in the region of 1200. Since then we have stricken 4 ships and added 6 new ships without a realistic adjustment to required Establishment. On the basis of plus two ships we needed to add at least another 4 crew equivalent to give an Establishment figure of 1380. The Tables were designed to give strength requirement for each ship type so that an increase / decrease in ships numbers would see an automatic adjustment in those strengths. Likewise the Seagoing Replacements Table was to be adjusted in a similar manner allowing two crews for each ship. The organisational Group had a preference for a higher crew Replacement ratio at three crews for each ship. The fact that current strength is below 1000 is a matter of deep concern for operational certainties.
                        Did you also look at the 3 crew 2 ship model?

                        Comment


                        • I’ll have to dig out the special report on the AC & NS to see the size of the fleet (if it was 7 or 8) but they were working off 1.3 crews per ship in the flotilla plus all the shore side support to allow for the rotation.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            In 1989/1990 a few of us were tasked to draw up a new organisational structure for the Naval Service . At that time we were a seven ship navy plus the Diving School and emerging units created by satellite and digital technologies. If I remember rightly the strength figure deemed needed was in the region of 1200. Since then we have stricken 4 ships and added 6 new ships without a realistic adjustment to required Establishment. On the basis of plus two ships we needed to add at least another 4 crew equivalent to give an Establishment figure of 1380. The Tables were designed to give strength requirement for each ship type so that an increase / decrease in ships numbers would see an automatic adjustment in those strengths. Likewise the Seagoing Replacements Table was to be adjusted in a similar manner allowing two crews for each ship. The organisational Group had a preference for a higher crew Replacement ratio at three crews for each ship. The fact that current strength is below 1000 is a matter of deep concern for operational certainties.
                            If we work back from the current figure of 887 then we have enough crew for 5 ships, is my maths correct?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              If we work back from the current figure of 887 then we have enough crew for 5 ships, is my maths correct?
                              Close enough, about 5, pressurised by recruit training, and branch courses plus PNCO's.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                Close enough, about 5, pressurised by recruit training, and branch courses plus PNCO's.
                                The fault has to lie with the pundits in DOD and those that have acquiesced with recruitment strategy for technical apprentices in particular. The PDF needs an Apprentice school in order to imbue a service ethic into apprenticeship training. As far as all recruitment and retention is concerned there must be a mix of good pay, and up to date living conditions and facilities. There also needs to be a quota system to leave Service for all ranks and / or trades. DOD expenditure is too low and leads to imbalanced decisions such as barrack closures causing congestion elsewhere. Failures in Equipping and re-equipping units is weakening output capability. Our PDF expenditure needs to be in the order of 3bn per annum to reach modern standards and stop the present regression.
                                Last edited by ancientmariner; 4 August 2020, 01:04.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X