The Argument For Reducing RAF Entry Standards...

 

 

Few things can get the Internet world of #miltwitter riled up more than the suggestion of changing / reducing / removing standards. The merest hint of doing something differently attracts a legion of online comments, ranging from people who are involved in the issue to those long retired or never served who still see themselves as ‘gatekeepers’ for the cause.

The latest mini-outrage was the eminently sensible suggestion by the Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) that it may be worth looking at physical standards of recruits to see whether those with niche skills necessarily need to pass a fitness test. This idea, merely floated in a speech and not of itself formal policy has whipped the internet up into a frenzy, with all manner of people moaning about standards, values and conjuring up ever more unlikely scenarios where the person may find themselves at risk as a result. It all feels a little bit hyperbolic for what seems like a rather sensible suggestion.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

If you read what CAS said, it is rather different to that which is being portrayed in the press. His comments included say:

 “"We can have different standards. We can look at different parts of society that we haven't recruited from traditionally. But that is the nature of what a war fighter in the 2040s could be, so thinking, as part of agile thinking about the technology of 2040, thinking through the demographics of the work force that is going to be operating that technology and then you have to start recruiting them today."

He went on to say that:

"I think as militaries we can have a conversation, a healthy conversation, about different physical standards, different neurodiversity standards and we should be ready for those conversations,"… I think it's an important part of being forces that are fit for the future that are ready for the future, taking advantage of the widest pool of talent in our respective national work forces."

This is subtly different from saying that we should recruit without necessarily having fitness tests for some people, but is rather a much wider conversation about the workforce of the future.

The demographic of Defence is constantly changing, and what is acceptable at one time may radically alter at others. For example, as our understanding on health has changed, and overall population health has improved, risk levels are always changing and altering. For example, the Royal Navy takes a very different approach to eyesight and laser surgery now compared to 30 years ago. It is a natural process of evolution and change to reflect wider society.

In this case CAS was talking about the workforce of 2040 – a baby born this week will in 2040 be leaving school having completed their A-Levels and will be looking to go university or join the armed forces, and no matter how far off it sounds, it is only 18 years away! The generation that we will need to recruit in 2040 will be extremely different to the recruits of 2000 or 1940 – they will have grown up in an utterly digital world, plugged into the internet and wider connectivity almost from the day that they are born.

Their generation will have very different attitudes on some issues – for example they may be less open to drinking, but far more amenable to using drugs. As a generation far more aware of mental health and understanding how minds work, it is likely that more of them will be formally diagnosed as being on the neurodiverse spectrum earlier on in life, including diagnosis of autism.

At the moment autism is an active bar to recruitment, preventing people diagnosed with it from officially joining – although if you are picked up later on while in service, it does not a reason for medical discharge. But what it does mean is that many of the recruits who the military may need could be ruled out of contention due to their being assessed as being neurodiverse.

The first key point is that CAS’s statement seems to point to a more tolerant understanding of standards for people in certain roles and trades. This does not mean that there will be a blanket change across the board, but it could mean that health standards are amended to enable some trades and roles to open up to people already diagnosed in this way. A small change, but one that enables recruitment to occur more easily.

The next challenge is fitness – already people have images of giant blimps cruising around looking like airsoft players and being totally unfit for their role, yet still allowed to serve. Again, this seems somewhat hyperbolic and at odds with military experience. What CAS appears to be saying is that there may be merit in looking at fitness standards overall and asking if they are the right standards, or if things could be done differently.

If, for example, you are joining as a member of the RAF Regiment, it makes sense to ensure that you are robust and physically fit, able to march five miles of death before watching the Parachute Regiment on TV deploy to Kabul do the job your organisation has spent the last 70 years training to do… But if you are going to be joining an engineering or digital role, likely to be based in the UK or a friendly location, do you need the same basic standard of fitness?

This is where the debate gets intense as people argue over the right level of fitness, and the relative probability of people being in an ever more unlikely series of events up to and including vehicle ambush in a hostile threat environment. This usually results in flippant comments about how the person will be a risk to themselves and teammates if unfit, without considering that to have got into said hostile theatre, they’d needed to have passed various fitness assessments as part of their pre-tour training.

What the argument seems to be is instead saying that for some trades where they are looking to attract people with very niche skills, the RAF may look to reduce the basic entry level fitness requirements to new joiners to permit a wider range of people who may have the mental aptitude to do the job, to apply and enter early on. It does not mean that all of the RAF are going to be unfit, it means that some roles may permit entry with slightly lower initial entry standards. Is this a bad thing? To be honest, no not really.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

The RAF is in a battle for talent, where it needs to attract people with the mental skills to work on incredibly complicated and complex technology and be able to ensure that the UK can hold its own against an increasingly diverse range of future threats. This is going to be different in the 2040s than in the 1940s – we need people with brains and an ability to think in ways that their predecessors could not dream of in order to win. If doing this means accepting a reduced physical entry standard then that is a price worth paying if it keeps us safe.

Some will argue that those who cannot pass the fitness test could be employed as civil servants – this isn’t ideal as there are many operational areas where uniformed personnel are needed to comply with the Laws of Armed Conflict from a targeting perspective. Also, there is less flexibility in employing them and growing their careers and being able to move them at short notice is helpful, particularly given the work they will be doing.

We also assume that those who join will not want to do any fitness at all and will forever more be sitting there as wannabe blimps. This is also a dangerous assumption – the armed forces excel at making people want to engage with their fitness and physical capability and to push themselves further. But, this drive often comes as people get older or work in an environment where others work out. Saying to new entrants ‘you can join without being as fit as you think’ does not mean they will default to not being fit for their career, it means they are being given a chance to join. We should be wary of assuming that this means they will always be ‘biffs’.

The wider picture is that demographics are also altering, and the RAF (and wider Forces) are recruiting from a much bigger age bracket. By considering fitness standards and reducing them to certain roles, it is much easier to appeal to new entrants in their 30s and 40s who may be looking at a reserve career. Some will say ‘why not get fit before you join’, but it can be a hard lonely road as an adult trying to get fit in isolation and can take a while – why not give someone a chance and where they have the mental skills we need, bring them in and work on their fitness while employing them, rather than losing them?

What this boils down to is thinking intelligently about how to gain talent. It means taking a fresh look at old practises and ensuring that they remain right and sensible for the organisation at the time.  To that end what CAS is proposing is a really sensible idea. Taking a long look at the future population and trying to make sure that the military can recruit them makes sense. We cannot take for granted that the next generation will want to serve, or what they will want. Rather than isolate ourselves from them in an ivory tower marked ‘standards’, it makes much more sense to engage, understand and think now about how we can in 18 years time recruit people that can give the nation what it needs.

The year 2040 will mark the centenary of the Battle of Britain. The recruits we need to take will be utterly different, but also strangely similar to their predecessors. The next generation will be different in some ways from the previous generation, and that’s okay. They won’t be worse, they won’t necessarily be better, but they will be right for the threat we face. We must ensure that we are ready for them, because if not, they will go onto great things elsewhere.