# Question for the Air Force types



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2004)

Out of curiousity if given the opportunity would you go back to the old RCAF/RAF rank structure we have before the Big U?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2004)

Although I'm not in the Air Force, I like it - it represents the fact that the Air Force is an independant arm of a modern fighting force responsible for the projection of Air Power and.

For anyone who isn't aware of the British system of rankings:

http://www.rafcom.co.uk/information/rank.cfm


----------



## aesop081 (4 Dec 2004)

As a newly minted air force type, i would like to see a more distinctive rank structure for the air force. Although for me right now it would not change much (if we were to use the brit model) but for later on......I eventualy want to CFR to navigator so it would be nice to be "flight Lt" or "pilot officer" or whatever.  Maybe even different rank insignias ??


----------



## Inch (4 Dec 2004)

Ex, you've already heard my opinion on it, but I'll share with the rest of y'all. 

I'm all for it, I think being a Flight Lt would be awesome. Though given our existing structure, we'd have Wing Comds as Sqn CO's and Group Capts as Wing CO's. Kind of confusing if you ask me, ie Wing Commander Bloggins is the 423 Sqn Commander. There's no reason we couldn't change the system a little bit.

I definitely think we should get the old RCAF rank on our uniforms though, it just looks cool.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2004)

As Inch points out, the ranks do a better job of refecting what an Air Force Officer does.   Having a Major or a Lt Colonel fly around seems silly (almost as silly as Unification putting Colonels in charge of ships), AFAIK it is acceptable because the USAF kept the rank structure from the Army Air Force roots (which probably galls them so).   Flight Lt, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander etc, etc make much more sense (and plus, they sound cooler).

On that matter, let me say that I support Army Officer ranks returning to the "pips and crowns".  I never really liked the Navy/Air Force system of bars on the sleeve....


----------



## Garbageman (4 Dec 2004)

I'm not sure I'm a big fan of the RCAF rank structure.  Now, before everyone jumps on me, let me explain.

My grandfather was a Squadron Leader, but not once in his 25 year career was he in command of a squadron.  At one point, he was a Pilot Officer, but he was a Navigator, not a Pilot.  My other grandfather was a Flying Officer for a time, but served in the physical training branch, so he didn't fly.  Both of my grandfathers were Leading Aircraftsmen at one point, but neither of them ever mechanically worked on an aircraft.

My point is, the ranks are too specifically linked to a defined role.  To me, being a Major is a little less definitive than being a Squadron Leader.  I'm all for honouring and continuing many of the traditions of the RCAF, but I feel that this was one change for the better.

By the way, the chart that was refered to was helpful, but it isn't the same as the ranks used in the RCAF.  The biggest discrepency is with the NCO ranks.  Here's what the RCAF used to look like:

Officers:
http://www.airforce.qc.ca/gallery2_e.htm

NCOs:
http://www.airforce.qc.ca/gallery1_e.htm


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2004)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Sam69 (4 Dec 2004)

I'll side with Garbageman on this one. I really find the RAF style ranks to be anachronistic and far too narrow in focus (i.e. pilot centric). We are slowly, but surely, moving to a  joint structure. Trying to revive a long dead concept that emphasizes environmental differences is, IMO, a step backward not forward. 

I suppose that I would not be able to see past the silliness of walking into HQ and referring to a logistics officer as "Pilot Officer." Or to the Admin O as "Squadron Leader." I have to think that they would probably find it silly too. I would also find it tiresome to explain to the public why I would be called "Wing Commander" if I was only a Squadron CO.

Just an opinion.

Sam

"Almost always tradition is nothing but a record and a machine-made imitation of the habits that our ancestors created. The average conservative is a slave to the most incidental and trivial part of his forefathers glory -- to the archaic formula which happened to express their genius or the eighteenth-century contrivance by which for a time it was served." Walter Lippmann

The assumption must be that those who can see value only in tradition, or versions of it, deny man's ability to adapt to changing circumstances." Stephen Bayley


----------



## Garry (4 Dec 2004)

I'd like to see the ranks revert to what they were...but couldn't care less what they were called.

IMHO we're WAY "over-ranked", and many of the promotions/ranks have lost their zest.

Anyone remember being jacked up by a "Lance-JacK"?...that's a one-stripe private. The stripe actually meant something way back when. The working rank was Private- and there was nothing wrong with being an old Private.

Same with 2Lt- they actually did something years ago- other than attend courses.

The automatic "promotions" to Corporal and Lt (and maybe even Captain) destroyed the credibility of those ranks, necessitating ever higher rank levels commensurate with command authority. Believe it or not, Sqn Commanders actually used to command Squadrons...go figure!!

No idea why we have so many "time in" ranks- not required.


----------



## Garbageman (5 Dec 2004)

Garry said:
			
		

> IMHO we're WAY "over-ranked", and many of the promotions/ranks have lost their zest.



Agreed.  2Lt shouldn't equal "I've graduated university" and nothing more.


----------



## lostmuskrat (6 Dec 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> Agreed.   2Lt shouldn't equal "I've graduated university" and nothing more.



Isn't that what OCdt is for?


----------



## rifleman (6 Dec 2004)

Actually 2Lt means 'I've finished University and Basic Officer Training'


----------



## Garbageman (6 Dec 2004)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Actually 2Lt means 'I've finished University and Basic Officer Training'


Right, so if you're DEO this means that you've joined an organization and received a promotion within 14 weeks.  That seems a little too quick for me.


----------



## Big Foot (6 Dec 2004)

Or if you're RMC, it means "I've surivived Basic, 4 years of School and whatever phase training I did for my trade". 4 years isn't too long to get 2Lt. That said, it's a hell of a sight longer than the 14 weeks DEOs take.


----------



## Inch (6 Dec 2004)

BOTC and a Degree have been decided to be the requirements to receive a Queen's Commission. 2Lts are Commissioned, OCdts are not. That's the difference. 

Garbageman, ask your civvie buddies how much leave they get. Most civvies have to work at a place for 10 years to get the leave that we start with. It's just the way it is. 2Lt is not a promotion, it's a starting point for Commissioned Officers. An officer is immediately put into a leadership position, it only makes sense that he gets the rank to do the job since troops are obligated to follow a Commissioned Officer and obey lawful orders given by the Commissioned Officer. An OCdt is nothing more than an untrained officer.


----------



## Inch (6 Dec 2004)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Or if you're RMC, it means "I've surivived Basic, 4 years of School and whatever phase training I did for my trade". 4 years isn't too long to get 2Lt. That said, it's a hell of a sight longer than the 14 weeks DEOs take.



How do you figure? DEOs do 4 years of school as well, they just don't get paid for it nor do they get it paid for by the Crown.


----------



## Garbageman (6 Dec 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> BOTC and a Degree have been decided to be the requirements to receive a Queen's Commission. 2Lts are Commissioned, OCdts are not. That's the difference.



Maybe I'd be happier if DEOs didn't get commissioned until they finished their phase training.  I know this would be a long time for some, but there's a great deal of credibility involved in receiving a commission, and I don't know how someone with three months in the CF can be expected to have achieved it.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Garbageman, ask your civvie buddies how much leave they get. Most civvies have to work at a place for 10 years to get the leave that we start with.



He he, I'm a teacher in civy life.  8 weeks in the summer, 2 weeks at Christmas, and a week in March.  Can't be beat!  ;D


----------



## Inch (6 Dec 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> Maybe I'd be happier if DEOs didn't get commissioned until they finished their phase training.   I know this would be a long time for some, but there's a great deal of credibility involved in receiving a commission, and I don't know how someone with three months in the CF can be expected to have achieved it.



While I don't disagree entirely, I think you'd have an incredibly difficult time recruiting guys if they're only going to make $26,000 for the first 2 years they're in the CF when they've got twice that in debt from school and civvie jobs that'll pay at least 50% more.



			
				Garbageman said:
			
		

> He he, I'm a teacher in civy life.  8 weeks in the summer, 2 weeks at Christmas, and a week in March.  Can't be beat!  ;D



Ok, you win!  ;D


----------



## Heatwave (7 Dec 2004)

As for the rank structure, I agree with Garbageman...they are too "pilot oriented"



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> BOTC and a Degree have been decided to be the requirements to receive a Queen's Commission.


Don't forget the CFR and SCR Plans.   A degree is not a requirement, but more of an eventual expectation.   This post was more for those not "in the know", as I realize Inch is well aware of these plans.   



			
				Garbageman said:
			
		

> He he, I'm a teacher in civy life. 8 weeks in the summer, 2 weeks at Christmas, and a week in March. Can't be beat! ;D


And still underpaid for the work you do, IMO.

Chimo!


----------



## Inch (7 Dec 2004)

Heatwave said:
			
		

> Don't forget the CFR and SCR Plans.   A degree is not a requirement, but more of an eventual expectation.   This post was more for those not "in the know", as I realize Inch is well aware of these plans.
> Chimo!



Right you are, I was just answering the "why do DEO's get a Commission" question.

You could also point to officers under the OCTP program, they stayed as OCdts until either they received their degree or they were MOC qualified.  I had a couple guys on my Advanced flying training that got promoted from OCdt to Capt on Wings grad. Everything was retroactive since the training delays were the CF's fault and not ours. I'm not sure if other trades retro paid like that, but I know pilots are.


----------



## Garbageman (7 Dec 2004)

If it were up to me, all CFRs would go immediately to 2Lt or even Lt.  I felt embarassed for the CFRs that I was on SLT with, as they were only OCdts and were lumped in the same pile with us 18-19 year old ROTP types.  I know they were getting their old pay rates, but the rank on their shoulder still was the same.

I understand that if DEOs had to take a pay cut and stay as an OCdt for a year or two that it would be very difficult to get them to enroll for pay reasons.  I know I wouldn't go and re-enroll as a DEO if it meant that my pay would essentially be cut in half for several years.  So perhaps they could stay as OCdts, but get payed on a different (higher) scale than OCdts that are going through ROTP.  I keep refering back to it, but I don't like the idea of having DEOs who've barely even gotten their first pay because they've only been in 3 months already parading around as a 2Lt.


----------



## Inch (7 Dec 2004)

Garbageman, I think you have CFR's confused with UTPNCMs. CFRs tend to go straight to Lt or Capt, they never go to OCdt and they very rarely if ever go to 2Lt. UTPNCM is a program for junior ranks to go to university and get their degrees, thus they need to have a degree under that program to get their Commission, once they do, they go straight to Lt instead of 2Lt like DEOs and ROTP candidates.

As I said before, 2Lt is a starting point for Commissioned officers, I think you're putting too much stock into what a 2Lt stands for. They are Commissioned officers, but why should a guy that has the same quals as an ROTP 2Lt be left at OCdt for more than a few months? I just don't see the logic in that, and don't try to compare this to RMC, tell me how many ROTP pilots are commissioned before they even start Phase IIa in Moose Jaw, that's right, all of them. So why not a DEO since they'll go from BOTC to Portage and then to Moose Jaw?

If you think we're the only ones that do that, you don't have to look far to see a similar scenario. If a guy joins the USN with a degree, they go to Ensign as soon as they're done OCS.


----------



## Garbageman (7 Dec 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Garbageman, I think you have CFR's confused with UTPNCMs.



Indeed I did.  As the kids say, "my bad".



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> As I said before, 2Lt is a starting point for Commissioned officers, I think you're putting too much stock into what a 2Lt stands for. They are Commissioned officers, but why should a guy that has the same quals as an ROTP 2Lt be left at OCdt for more than a few months?



Well I'll have to agree to disagree.  This whole discussion started by someone saying that the CF is generally "over-ranked".  I think that 2Lt could stand for a whole lot more, and likely should.  But no, in it's present iteration, 2Lt doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, which I think is a shame.


----------



## Garry (8 Dec 2004)

I think y'all are getting off track here. 

Anyone ever see a 2 Lt in charge of anything? Schools don't count, they make their own rules and live in their own world (and rightly so). Look around other Army's and you'll see 2 Lt leading troops- you won't see that here. 

In the CF, Lt is the basic leadership rank for Officers, M/Cpl for NCM's.

IMHO, this denegrates the rank of 2 Lt and Cpl.

We have evolved in this manner simply as a way to pay the troops a little more for performing the basic job, nothing else. 

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Zoomie (8 Dec 2004)

LdSH Leopard Troop Leader is a 2Lt...

Cheers


----------



## Garry (10 Dec 2004)

Sure he is- any bets his promotion is in before christmas?

How many Lt pilots you seen? I've never seen one (operational anyway) that wasn't a Captain....you want to prove how much experience that Captain has as an Officer, and therefore deserving of that rank? Want to argue why she needs to be an Officer? Count how many men she leads?

How many cpls have you seen in a crew comander position? Leading troops on a quick attack? 

Any bets that any Sgt musician got that rank with more than 5 years in trade? Want to talk about padres/priests and how much time they have in, and why they deserve to be an "instant" captain?

You can find a few anomalies anywhere- but they wont prove your point. 

and you haven't.

maybe you should sign on with the crew that's due here next week for the para training, I'll buy you a beer and we can take this further.

Cheers-garry


----------



## aesop081 (10 Dec 2004)

Just curious Garry, whats your military experience...your profile is sorta blank ! ( dont take this the wrong way, i'm just curious)


----------



## Inch (10 Dec 2004)

Garry said:
			
		

> How many Lt pilots you seen? I've never seen one (operational anyway) that wasn't a Captain....you want to prove how much experience that Captain has as an Officer, and therefore deserving of that rank? Want to argue why she needs to be an Officer? Count how many men she leads?



Garry, 

I'll argue why pilots need to be officers.  Launching offensive weapons is an officer's job, name a single NCM trade that does the same thing without the supervision of an officer.  The reason we're all officers is because we don't stay as copilots forever, we upgrade to crew commander or aircraft captain within 18-24 months of being on Sqn. If you start throwing NCMs in there, you limit how many potential crew commanders you get. If you think we're the only ones that do this, have a look at the RN, RAF, USAF, USN, Luftwaffe, want me to keep going? The armies of those countries are about the only place that NCMs fly, since we don't recruit for specific pilot jobs, that wouldn't work too well for us.

The lack of Lt Pilots is due to training delays, nothing else. Besides, being an airforce guy, you should know how much stock we put into ranks. You could have an Lt aircraft captain with a LCol as the copilot, the Lt is in charge regardless of rank on his shoulder. How often does that happen? Everytime our CO goes flying, he's only qualified AC, so some Maj/Capt is the crew commander. So, since the guy could be the CC or AC, why not give him a more suitable rank instead of leaving him at Lt?

The time based promotions are a money thing, that's it. What would you suggest for a timeline or qualifications required to get to Capt? If it's going to take a guy 8 years to get to Capt and start making some good money, their obligatory service will be up and they'll tell you to take your lack of pay and stuff it.


----------



## Garry (10 Dec 2004)

Inch,

Well said, and I agree- it's all about the money, and to the detriment of the rank. Use those same air forces you mentioned...many have career paths that allow a pilot to fly, and be paid for his/her knowledge, experience, and ability. At the same time, Pilots may also choose a career path that leads to higher rank. Both paths, the pay increases with performance. This is also available in other trades.

Unfortunately, we don't have that option.....and end up with pers in leadership ranks,with no experience/ability commensurate with that rank....and it's wrong. 

If a jnr officer/ncm finds themselves in a situation requiring leadership, they look to the rank- not the person behind it- and they should always get what they expect and deserve. It doesn't always happen- and it's not the individual with the rank,( but no experience) fault- it's our system.

and as for an Officer always releasing weapons......seen a fighter operate outside of a package? or a P-140 that only had one major onboard (ok, low shot  )......even without the on scene authourity,(necessary, imho, and always there) we always seem to have some type of command authority in the stream, be it awacs, north bay, fwc on ship, etc.

The Forces used to have a commercial entitled "you never stand alone"....well, they were right, and it hasn't changed....good thing to.

good discussion!

Cheers-garry


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Dec 2004)

Garry said:
			
		

> I think y'all are getting off track here.
> 
> Anyone ever see a 2 Lt in charge of anything? Schools don't count, they make their own rules and live in their own world (and rightly so). Look around other Army's and you'll see 2 Lt leading troops- you won't see that here.
> 
> ...



I was an Air Defence Troop Commander for almost a year as a 2LT.  They most assuredly do command things...


----------



## Inch (11 Dec 2004)

Garry said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> Well said, and I agree- it's all about the money, and to the detriment of the rank. Use those same air forces you mentioned...many have career paths that allow a pilot to fly, and be paid for his/her knowledge, experience, and ability. At the same time, Pilots may also choose a career path that leads to higher rank. Both paths, the pay increases with performance. This is also available in other trades.
> 
> Unfortunately, we don't have that option.....and end up with pers in leadership ranks,with no experience/ability commensurate with that rank....and it's wrong.



IIRC, the RAF has a system like that in place, one stream for "bigger and better things" and one stream for career Captains that will be nothing more than drivers/crew commanders.

In discussing this very subject with my USN coursemates, they told me their system isn't all that different. Lt (N) is pretty much automatic like it is for us, except it takes them 4 years vice the 3 for us, they do 2 years at Ensign and 2 years at Lt junior grade. 

That's really all I've got, discussions are pretty short when you agree on 90% of the discussion.  ;D

Cheers,


----------



## Laps (14 Dec 2004)

I really don't care for all the "Airforce" thing.  The blue epaulets and nametapes on the Cadpat look goofy enough.  I would hate to be a Flying Lieutenant on an army base...  As far as I am concerned, we are all part of the same team, and for all those people worried about losing their identity as Airforce: GET OVER IT!!!


----------



## Garry (15 Dec 2004)

Well, actually, I'd prefer not to.

There's an awful lot of good things that come from remembering your roots, from pride in the accomplishments of those who preceeded us, to lessons learned from those same guys. The Army retains it's Regimental system for the same reasons: pride in the traditions, and honour in maintaining them.

We had one of the largest Air Forces in the world at the end of WWII. We have always had an incredibly professional, competent, and sucessfull  Air Force, despite the size. We have every reason to be proud of our heritage, and anything we can do to stimulate our airmen to emulate those who have gone before is, imho, a good thing.

Tac Hel- congrats! (btw, bet I have more hours in a green fling wing than you do) Be proud of what you do....and the fact that you're air force. Nothing wrong with it.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Sam69 (5 Jan 2005)

Garry said:
			
		

> There's an awful lot of good things that come from remembering your roots, from pride in the accomplishments of those who preceeded us, to lessons learned from those same guys. The Army retains it's Regimental system for the same reasons: pride in the traditions, and honour in maintaining them.
> Cheers-Garry



Well, if we really wanted to remember our roots, all the Naval Air types would be wearing their wings on their sleeves and the Army would still have ownership of their own aviation assets.

I feel pitifully little loyalty to the "Air Force" because I've spent the bulk of my career with the Navy. The reality is that we are a single service under law. Perhaps it's time we spent less time reminiscing about the past and more time thinking about the future. (you might have guessed that I have a few strong opinions about this subject by now but I've been trying to hold myself back)

The future is Joint (actually JIMP but why bother with another acronym for the sake of precision?). Let's start talking and thinking that way.


Sam


----------



## DZ Chick (17 Jan 2005)

Yeah...I think looking forward is better than looking back.........but then again....I think we should all be wearing black uniforms, big-ass helmets and thigh-high leather boots....and carrying tazers......and guns....all the time.......
.
.
.
Just a thought........

(I prefer to be fashion forward in all things military....)


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Jan 2005)

Post-integration rank is fine by me...huah!


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (7 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Garbageman, I think you have CFR's confused with UTPNCMs. CFRs tend to go straight to Lt or Capt, they never go to OCdt and they very rarely if ever go to 2Lt. UTPNCM is a program for junior ranks to go to university and get their degrees, thus they need to have a degree under that program to get their Commission, once they do, they go straight to Lt instead of 2Lt like DEOs and ROTP candidates.



To straighten some points out:
As a UT, and a former Sgt, your take on the UTPNCM program is lacking some finer points.  A MCpl and above can CFR, and anyone in the ranks can go UT (assuming they have enough time left to fulfill their obligatory service).  The difference between CFR and UT is that of education.  A UT gets their looniversity paid for prior to commissioning, whereas a CFR is deemed professional enough to be given a commission on the spot.  Under the UT program, a MCpl and above goes straight to Lt upon graduating school, whereas a Cpl/LS will go to 2Lt.


----------



## Sam69 (7 Feb 2005)

used-to-be-EGS said:
			
		

> To straighten some points out:
> As a UT, and a former Sgt, your take on the UTPNCM program is lacking some finer points.  A MCpl and above can CFR, and anyone in the ranks can go UT (assuming they have enough time left to fulfill their obligatory service).  The difference between CFR and UT is that of education.  A UT gets their looniversity paid for prior to commissioning, whereas a CFR is deemed professional enough to be given a commission on the spot.  Under the UT program, a MCpl and above goes straight to Lt upon graduating school, whereas a Cpl/LS will go to 2Lt.



This raises an interesting point. Recently we have refused to re-enrol officers, who left and wanted to come back, because they did not have a university degree. Are we still accepting CFRs without a university degree? If so, is this not a double standard?

Sam


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (7 Feb 2005)

I know a MWO that just got his commission (CFR or SCR, I'm not sure), but I do know for a fact that he doesn't have a University education.  It seems to be a real grey area concerning commissioning from the ranks, but as far as I'm concerned (personal opinion), they do tend to make the best officers, at least for the troops under them.


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (7 Feb 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> This raises an interesting point. Recently we have refused to re-enrol officers, who left and wanted to come back, because they did not have a university degree. Are we still accepting CFRs without a university degree? If so, is this not a double standard?
> 
> Sam



Maybe their Pers File had info that made them undesireable to let them back in........just a thought.........many variables, I suppose.


----------



## Chief Clerk (8 Feb 2005)

Love to go back!   Navy gets to at least use MS/C1-2/etc, Army gets to use CSM, RSM, etc
AirForce should be able to use old Flt Sgt, WO1 and 2 etc
Gives us more identity esp some of us on Army Bases!

And, does it cost anything more - not.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2005)

Chief Clerk said:
			
		

> Love to go back!     Navy gets to at least use MS/C1-2/etc, Army gets to use CSM, RSM, etc
> AirForce should be able to use old Flt Sgt, WO1 and 2 etc
> Gives us more identity esp some of us on Army Bases!
> 
> And, does it cost anything more - not.



Actually, CC, I think that SM, CSM and RSM are more akin to positions than rank, like the Navy's Coxswain, bos'n and the Air Force's SWO or SAMS.

Identity?  Isn't the gaudy blue on the CADPAT slip-ons and the blue t-shirt enough? 

Funny that with all the Air Force talk over blue this and that to instill spirit and esprit de corps (or so the AF buttons and bows committee members say!) that the Air Force tartan kilt was recently forbidden for wear with our mess kit...so much for spirit! ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------

