Top Heavy

[Hamish 123]

Interesting piece in this week's Private Eye, about the number of senior officers in each of the services:-


The army has 90 more generals, brigadiers and colonels than required
80 admirals and commodores "surplus to requirements" in the navy
The RAF apparently has 160 AM, AVMs, air commodores and group captainsIf there are currently too many senior officers, presumably a good few won't survive any defence budget review . . . or will they?

[airborne_artist]

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas .....:E

[ORAC]

I'm glad you didn't word it as "thick at the top". It might have been misinterpreted. ;)

Why, I might ask, do the numbers for the Army and the Navy specify (and without asking how it was determined) those who are surplus to requirements, but the RAF give just a total?

Unless, of course, the author thinks the entire RAF is surplus to requirements. :hmm:

[ProfessionalStudent]

A few years back I was staying in the Wyton Officers' Mess and in the mailroom there were pigeon holes for 27 Gp Capts!!! 27! Unbelievable.

To think that any cuts will help address this imbalance is tantamount to lunacy.

Still, at least we feel we can rely on them and have faith in their decision making abilities....

[minigundiplomat]

Its not just Gp Capt and above. Look around the DFAC at KAF next time your there, it would seem that 1 in 3 people clutching a coveted blue beret is a Sqn Ldr.

Who on earth are all these people managing and leading?

[Hamish 123]

Orac, I was just quoting the article - it's doesn't specify how many of the air officers in the RAF are "surplus", so not my spin!

[L J R]

Minigun, the 'leaders' at KAF are managing all the excess people that exist there that do lots of 'I don't know what'....

Is it just me, but what do ALL those people in the DFAT actually do...? :suspect:

[Bunker Mentality]

Eat.............?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Eat.............?

Ah, so that's what goes on in there :(

[Motleycallsign]

Would it not be false economy to cull their Airships in the next Defence Cut hack? After all they retire on full pay anyway!

[Archimedes]

I think that as far as the RN goes, this may be a misinterpretation of a piece in International Affairs by Paul Cornish and Andrew Dorman (National defence in the age of austerity, July 2009) -


Yet in March 2008, the Navy had approximately 80 commodores, 20 more than it thinks it requires

For the RAF, the picture presented by Dorman and Cornish should worry rather more than just a few Group Captains and above:

According to none other than the minister of state for the armed forces (recently elevated to secretary of state for defence), in all ranks above flight lieutenant the RAF has more officers on its books than it requires

[The B Word]

OK, take a look at these figures from 2004:

British Army officers and other ranks, Analysis by rank and sex, at 1st April 2004http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/dp/images/108a.gif

Royal Navy and Royal Marine officers and other ranks, analysis by rank and sex, at 1st April 2004
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/dp/images/97a.gif


Royal Air Force officers and other ranks, Analysis by rank and sex, at 1st April 2004

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/dp/images/118a.gif

354 Captains & above in the Navy (out of 41,000).
748 Colonel & above in the Army (out of 113,000).
459 Gp Capts & above in the RAF (out of 53,000).

So about in propotion (roughly!) in 2004.

In 2008 the requirement for the RAF was 350 but the actual number was 440!

See House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 02 Jun 2008 (pt 0033) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080602/text/80602w0033.htm)

I can't find the 2009 figures but I guess this is why there has been a paucity in Flt Lt to Sqn Ldr promotions recently (about 60 on the recent flying-branch list vice about 120 in recent years! :eek:); I guess they're doing something about it now?

The B Word

[The B Word]

Just found this for Nov 2009:

RAF trained UK regular strengths and requirements by NATO rank Requirement vs Trained strength
OF-6 and above 100 vs 130:eek:
OF-5 290 vs 330:eek:
OF-4 1,130 vs 1,230:eek:
OF-3 2,420 vs 2,540:eek:
OF-2 and below 4,720 vs 4,260:sad:
Officers total 8,670 vs 8,480:sad:


See House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 10 Nov 2009 (pt 0012) (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091110/text/91110w0012.htm)

I guess this answers the current "rebalance" policy of less promotees...

[Pontius Navigator]

Look at the Army WO1/2 with about 6000 compared with the RAF WO/MACR near 1000 and the RN at the same.

If we look at boss worker bees - fofl/fs/wo equivalents we have:

Army 19800, RN 12520 and RAF 10040.

At sqn ldr eq it is 4470, 1020 and 2980.

Percentage wise, the OF4 grade in the Army is 22% of the managers grade, in the RN it is 8% and in the RAF it is 30%.

Clearly the RAF has more execs than managers whereas the RN promoted or out seems more efficient if more brutal.

[ORAC]

it's not comparing like for like.

The army has a lot of experienced NCOs because you need them on the battlefield and to cover attrition. The RAF is top heavy because the aircrew are mostly commissioned and that affects the ratio above. The RN works to fixed ratios on board ship.

So you have to compare each to their task, their churn rate and their wartime expected attrition rate - not against each other.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I can see what'll happen here. We'll all complain that the Group Captains and their ilk are a waste of space, we'll cheer when the next defence review chops lots of them, then we'll all PVR because "no-one's getting promoted anymore, there's no room for advancement, there's no chance to have a proper career anymore." Best get myself off to that PA spine quickly!! :ok:

Also, according to the MoD pension calculator thing, this "Air ranks retiring on full pay" is a total myth. I thought they did retire on full pay so tried it out; a 5 year old AVM, who joined at 21, planning on retiring at 55 as a level 5 AVM (£112 244 salary) leaves with a pension of £56 122 and a gratuity of £168 366.

Extremely generous yes, but not full pay by a long shot!

[Vertico]

The only ones who ever retired on full pay were the MRAFs and equivalent. The government decided a long time ago (2000?) not to make any more promotions to those ranks. So, the only full pay retirees now are the surviving MRAFs, Field Marshals and Admirals of the Fleet, most of whom seem to sit on the red benches in the Lords.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Didn't know that; but at least it defuses all the myths. Cheers!

[bakseetblatherer]

Well I remember reading in 'Chicken Hawk' about the WO that used to be a full bird-colonel.. and was RIF'd (reduction in force) to WO. I think HM forces could do with a bit of that!

[Sandy Wings]

5 Forward 6 back is correct.
I also believe that HM forces should be paid more generally for what they do (vice their MOD pen pushing collegues, all 65000 of them!)
So if they happen to be top heavy so what! Enjoy the better pay so that one day everyone can move up the Ranks.
I left after 16 years and took a 25% pay increase with little responcibilty( compared to the Airforce life) and now only work 15 days a month!
off to the golf course again.....
Sandy Wings;)

[Grimweasel]

Well, as this is a rumour site ......

Initial talk of RAF down to 31,000 in the next defence review has been 'trumped' by a friend of a friends 'rumour' that RAF strength of 25,000 is now being considered! GULP! That's like, errr, half of the RAF being chopped!!

Interestingly, the price of gold is the reaction by 'those in the know' to just how F*@ked the Banks REALLY are and the real prospect of sovereign loan default too. It's just the Government wants to hide this info from Joe Public. There may not be a way of paying people in HMG service next year when the Chinese et al demand their gilts back.

When the BoE Governor Merv King said in his latest report "People are going to have to expect a lower standard of living' he was giving us a hidden warning that the global economy is really still in a great deal of trouble - so don't get sucked in by this mega bear market rally.

So, if you do find yourself out of a job next year, you really should make the most of the monthly payments you have left and pay off as much of your debts as possible, as there will not be a lively job market to jump into – it could even be better for some to jump ship early. After all, do you fancy trying to use ‘ex-military’ etc on your job applications along with the other 19,999 ex-RAF on the market at the same time???

Start stocking the Apocalyptic reserve holdings with the tins of beans etc as this financial crisis is far, far from over, despite what the ‘news’ might be telling you!!

[Pontius Navigator]

it's not comparing like for like.

The army has a lot of experienced NCOs because you need them on the battlefield and to cover attrition. The RAF is top heavy because the aircrew are mostly commissioned and that affects the ratio above. The RN works to fixed ratios on board ship.

Orac, I know that which is why I chose to compare SNCO+WO+JO against the first EO rank. It is at Sqn Ldr that the RAF is top heavy compared with the Army. "Aircrew are mostly commissioned" is a red herring as "most" aircrew should be in the JO box and not EO.

A pertinent question would be how many commissioned aircrew are there in the RAF. Roger Honey, in 1988, said that the frontline requirement for aircrew was 1000 bums on seats. How many aircrew now?

[The B Word]

I heard at work today that we are short of aircrew Sqn Ldrs/Wg Cdrs (at least 60?) and it is the "penguins" that have swelled and are in need of culling!!!:E

I also heard that there is requirement for 4x OF-6 admin seccy types - there are more than 7, so I am told!

I believe this has occurred after the madness of a "Wg Cdr and above can do any job at that level" - the "guins" swelled in number to fill these leaving the aircrew short of available posts (unfortunately, some of these posts are for aircrew only! :ugh:). What a mess...

Standing by for an onslaught of fishy smelling guano!:E

The B Word

PS. Grimwesel, nice try. The 31,000 rumour started when people took 10,000 off of the current 41,000 strength. Unfortunately, the 10,000 is rumoured to be across defence (RN-heavy, Army-lite, RAF -heavy) so I understand that 37,000 is closer to the mark under "natural wastage" - no redundancy in the rumour I heard :{.

[FJJP]

I don't believe that Air Officers retire on full pay - they get a pension like all us mere mortals - handsome, I grant you, but not full pay. Except for MRAF, whom I believe does not 'retire' as such but continues to 'serve' with a reduced pay rate.

Unless, of course, someone knows differently....

[NP20]

I believe this has occurred after the madness of a "Wg Cdr and above can do any job at that level" - the "guins" swelled in number to fill these leaving the aircrew short of available posts (unfortunately, some of these posts are for aircrew only! ). What a mess...

Would you include examples such as ACM Pledger doing the CDL job?

[The B Word]

Would you include examples such as ACM Pledger doing the CDL job?

Wasn't he a chopper pilot - what's your point? I don't think we have any 4 star "guins" in the RAF do we?

http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/644.$plit/C_71_article_390191_Body_Web_ArticleBlock_0_Image.jpg?30%2F1 2%2F2004%2012%3A58%3A54%3A257
ACM Sir Malcolm

[Gnd]

The RAF and Army have 115 men per red tab and the RN 151, an Army Coy or their abouts - what does it equate to in the RN and RAF I wonder?