Equivalent rank

Discussion in 'The Quarterdeck' started by nearlyout, Oct 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Both C/Techs and Flt Sgts are listed as NATO rank OR7 as is a CPO. Is a CPO equivelent to C/T or Flt Sgt or is there an amount of seniority required to be equivilent to F/Sgt? Does anybody have a definitive answer? Ta
     
  2. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Try it this way

    If one takes precedence it'll say so in the same place you see 'OR7'.
     
  3. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I employ both - a FS and a CPO, are largely the same.

    WO2 = FS = Charge Chief (hence WO2); but generally a CPO can be employed in the equivalent post. Causes the world of pain in the mess.
     
  4. FS = CPO = SSGT
    Chief Tech = Nothing the same (falls in between CPO & PO), its a non-substansive rank as the CCPO was, however, a Chief Tech will go outside on a FSGT pension, a CCPO would have gone out on a CPO's pension.
     
  5. fwiw I used to employ FS (Trade Groups 3 and 7)/ CPO (RS)/ SSgt or WO2 (YofS and FofS) in much the same role.

    I had WOs over the top of that.

    The CTechs were probably employed more in the way I'd have used a pretty senior PO.
     
  6. The RAF have no equivalent rank to the Army/Navy WO2.
     
  7. I think that you will find that as regards pension, a CPO is the same rank as a Flt Sergeant, Chief Techs and Chief Tiffs as was go out on a CPO`s pension, the CPO`s Pension is the benchmark, ie CPO Chef same pension as CPO Tiff, unless it has changed in the last couple of years.

    CPO(Air)(AH1)(ATC) Higthepig.
     
  8. Tiff's don't exist anymore as such. Your right, a CPO of any trade will go outside on the same pension on AFPS 75, AFPS 05 is a new ball game altogether. Somone leaving on AFPS 05, their pension will be based on their rank, higher/lower rate and indeed increment level at time of leaving, so pensions will then differ. AFPS 05 is also from the day you join if below the age of 18.
    (standing by to be corrrected)
     
  9. My son who is a Chief Tiff on Bombers has done time for pension(signed for another 10) and looked very closely at the new pension and discovered that he is better off under the old scheme. Any new scheme, in my opinion is done somehow to save money, this may not be apparent at the moment, just my twopence worth that`s all.
     
  10. I agree totally, I've just started an extra five to am in a similar position. I know very few people who have changed to the new one. At the end of the day something new being offered isn't going to be as good as the old one. The few I do know who have changed are all approaching the age of 55 so could have 37 years worth of pension as apposed to the normal 22.
     
  11. Erm..........I`m confused, if they are approaching age 55 then they have done that time ie 37 years, if they joined at 18 surely? If they had left at age 50 then it would have been a 32 year pension?
     
  12. It confused the pants out of me Hig, am more than happy with the pension I've got!
     
  13. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Sort of right and wrong. From AP3392 Vol 2 which admitedlly is so wrong it has Fleet CPO still doh! But means WO1/WO2 in the Navy (I asked Air Man)

    RAF................................RN......................... ARMY
    Warrant Officer...............WO1.........................WO1
    Master Aircrew...............WO2..........................WO2
    Master Pilot
    Master Navigator
    Master Signaller
    Master Engineer
    Master Air Electronics Officer
    Master Air Loadmaster

    - All of the 'Masters' are WO1 equivalent, so the RN/Army WO2 are deemed to be equivalent but junior. So Chaz is right but they are deemed to be the same except when they get handbags out! The CPO equivalent are:

    RAF...............................RN...................ARMY
    Flight Sergeant................CPO.................Staff Sergeant
    Chief Technician.....................................Colour Sergeant
    ............................................................Staff Corporal

    Still far from perfect and the RAF are looking at introducing WO2 now they have JPA.
     
  14. Do you not think they missed the boat when we introduced the WO2?
     
  15. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Yes, but they had massive issues with their manning system like we had with NMMIS and couldn't technically implement it plus they were in the middle of a structure review. As I understand it they really want to move ahead and implement it but their is a lot of dissention in the ranks (as it were).

    They're just lumped Sgt and CT together for promotion in many trade groups and that's just killed many people chances of promotion. A hugely and understandably unpopular move but one they felt was necessary to start restructuring the trades.

    I think its TG4 now have WO, then FS and below that the feeder TGs are TG3 with CT and Sgt and TG11 who only have Sgt. Which means out of the last board there are 5 year FS but some CT have 12 years in. Wouldn't want to be in their mess decks.

    I think they're experiencing the same issues the Navy has over the last 10-15 years when we trimmed our own fat off (repeatedly) and made changes. They resisted and resisted but now its inevitable.
     
  16. I can understand why so many of the light blue are unhappy with that!!
     
  17. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    It's a tricky thing! As it stands, and I think someone pointed it out, CT is the additional rank in the RAF, many trade groups don't have this rank. For example in the RAF regiment a Sgt's next rank is F/Sgt, whereas in the technical trades its Sgt-CT-F/Sgt. To introduce WO2 in the technical trades would mean sgt-CT-WO2 against sgt-F/sgt-WO1 in the non tech branches, we really do begin to lose track of who is equivelant to who now because just within the RAF there would be CT, F/Sgt and WO2 as well as WO1. One alternative which I have heard mentioned is to bin CT which would mean all trades then went sgt-F/Sgt-Wo2(only for tech branches) then WO1 which would really upset a lot of F/Sgt's who already(wrongly) believe they are equivalent to WO2.

    It's probably worth mentioning at this point that a F/Sgt in the tech branches is generally not employed in a technical role, it is an administrators job- manpower controller for example, it's true and I know at least one Flight who will have a right old chunter at me if he reads this :w00t:

    CT is a relatively new rank in the RAF(I know everything is new in the RAF, habits over traditions etc) and was introduced to recognise the additional technical skills held by technicians over their non-tech counterparts, it's not a problem that's going to disappear overnight! None of the "solutions" really address the fact that most SNCO's in the RAF are close to being senior citizens whilst in the RN and Army we are still young and sprightly, that will always be an issue until career patterns are aligned.
     
  18. It all appears much the same as when we had the CCPO as a non-substansive rank for Techs/Tiffs. The only difference being that CCPO fell between CPO and WO (as was) and the CT falls between SGT and FSGT.
     
  19. as Chief Tiff rightly pointed out Chief Tech is an additional rank, specifically for the technical trades. Under the original plan, there was a system of time promotion, which if it had worked, would have meant that at the 22 year point a minimum rank of Chief Tech would have been reached. Promotion to FS and above was difficult.

    As has also been pointed out most RAF SNCOs are KOSs. To reach the rank of WO2 in the Army by mid 30s is no big deal and WO1 by 40 is not uncommon. However for the RAF, WO by 40 is a very good achievement.

    The ranks of Master Pilot, Master Signaller and Master Nav went out with the dinosaurs. The last MP that I knew was at Shawbury in 79 and he was just short of 55.
     
  20.  

Share This Page