Defence Board Civilianised (More or less) - merged

[SOSL]

UK Government announces that the Sea, Land and Air chiefs of staff will no longer sit on the Defence Board. The only military man on the board will be Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). CDS is a political appointment and so the entire Defence Board will be made up of politicians and civil servants. Will this improve the already precarious position of the UK Defence Forces?

[Tallsar]

Not in the slightest....we have now lost most of the difference between the MOD's constitution and that of other ministries delivering professional services. It's symptomatic of the era though where few understand the difference that is the military.....the civil service has for years tried to marginalise the uniformed input at any rank level....as has the Treasury...and we have done ourselves few favours by increasingly going native and not always doing the job we were really put in there to do....especially at the highest rank levels IMO...it also allows the politicians like Dave to minimise the effect of the single service chiefs when issues like MRA4 need decisions...:ugh::eek::(:{

[LFFC]

Perhaps more importantly, it paves the way to the abolition of the single-service chiefs-of-staff so that CinC Land, Air and Fleet (also 4*s) will become the heads of their respective Services.

[Evalu8ter]

LFFC,
I'd go one further and abolish the individual Service heads and make the CinC Fleet, LF and Air all 3* appointments and de facto head of Service. We may have the 4th largest budget to spend but as we use a huge chunk of the procurement slice acting as a "Benefits System" for British industry our projected size only requires two 4* posts - CDS and a newly advanced CJO (removing at a stroke the ridiculous notion that a 3* has to "ask" a series of 4* officers to commit FE@R to support ops). A commensurate cull of the "enrichment" 1*s and the winnowing of the 2* cadre will produce both savings and open up the prospect of keeping the promotion system alive during the next few years.

[endplay]

BBC report that the individual heads of Service will no longer have a seat at the top table. Good thing or the final nail in the military coffin, sorry covenant!

[LFFC]

Yeah - it looks like it will happen that way!

MoD and armed forces shakeup – in detail (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/defence-and-security-blog/2011/jun/27/mod-armed-forces-shakeup-liam-fox)


This means that "the service chiefs will no longer need a four-star commander-in-chief" to have alongside them. Levene says that because service chiefs will be less involved in strategy, there is also no need for them to be based at the MoD headquarters in Whitehall. Instead, they should relocate to their individual service headquarters.
.
.
This is one of Levene's core recommendations: that a new JFC should be created and headed by a "military four-star" – the second highest rank possible – who reports directly to the chief of the defence staff.



He says that the days of senior personnel being in post for a short period must end – recommending that a four-year to five-year posting is appropriate, rather than a two-year one.


....and there goes your "enrichment" 1* posts! Four to five-years posts of course means that the number of senior rank levels must reduce by at least 2 so that it is possible to get to the very top before retirement! All very cunning really.

[ex-fast-jets]

Giving more authority to MoD civil servants by making CDS the only uniform on the Defence Board is a fundamental mistake. It will end in tears.

[Roland Pulfrew]

A commensurate cull of the "enrichment" 1*s and the winnowing of the 2* cadre will produce both savings and open up the prospect of keeping the promotion system alive during the next few years.

If we assume that CAS, CinC Air, DCinC Air, AMP and the various 2*s, and their army and navy equivalents, are all busy (and I haven't noticed any who seem to be wandering out the various HQs with nothing to do) then just who is going to pick up all the work that will still need to be done? Can we assume that this is the government's much vaunted "efficiency"? Those that remain will just have to work even harder? We are already seeing work being missed, more and more legislation adding to the workload, decisions not being made, deadlines being missed in various of our HQs. This approach just isn't going to work! :ugh:

And completely agree with BomberH. Where are the commensurate reductions in MOD civil service star count? I can nominate a few that would be worthy of culling!!

[Dengue_Dude]

When it was announced that they were removing the heads of the Armed Forces, I thought personally, that was well over the top!

Mind you, the top will be lower without heads!

Wonder where it ends . . .

[TheWizard]

If you are serving then you can read the full DIB on Airspace where you can get most of the facts and not the made up bull**** being spouted.

[Geehovah]

Forget all the bureaucracy.

We'd transform defence by asking the operators what equipment they want, suggesting the art of the possible and procuring it in a sensible timescale before it becomes obsolescent during development.

What I'm missing is how removing the military from the decision chain helps that aspiration.

[alfred_the_great]

Or you could all read the actual report, stop worry about those CS who seem to be the devil incarnate, and then discuss from an informed view point. Frankly the report sounds remarkably sensible to me.

DRU (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PolicyStrategyandPlanning/DefenceReform/DefenceReformReportIntoStructureAndManagementOfMod.htm)

edit to add link
2nd edit the link HTML tag was wrong

[theonewhoknows]

The DRU report seems like a load of bollocks to me. Then, what would I know. It's very easy to write recommendations, and write, then write more, and then write some more. These seem to me mostly trival words, designed to satisfy politicians. I don't see much about the important part of defence, i.e. those that actually do the job - the soldiers, airmen and navy dudes. It's mostly about the staff in 'Puzzle Palace', and other centres of excellence! What about what matters - the sharp end. Any critque of the value of this report would be appreciated, because I'm struggling at the moment to understand its purpose. Will it improve anything? Or, more to the point, wil it make things worse?

[Whenurhappy]

When the DRU recommendations are implemented Defence UK will inexorably slide towards a two-team race as is the model in many countries. There will be the MOD – largely civilian staffed, that covers inter alia strategy, policy, procurement and budget and the Armed Forces (let’s call them UKDF) - who, err, do the fighting. Certainly, there will be little need for a rash of 4* at the top – one per service, who could be called, hmmm, let’s see….CinC Air, for example. The paradox in this model which will exist in practise, if not name, is that the single-service chiefs won’t have much discretion in the use of their budgets, as effectively they will only cover salaries and other operating costs – in spite of what Lord Levene has desired. Procurement will remain centralised and funds bid for accordingly across the Department(s). Ironically, a HQ UKDF will be required to coordinate the peacetime activities of the forces – whereas the enhanced PJHQ will be primus inter pares.

Moreover, the single Services will have less say on MOD decisions on, for example, tri-service personnel matters, (employment models, TACOS, pay award levels, policy on housing, schooling etc) and there will be fewer service personnel in the MOD to apply the handbrake to even more vindictive policies thought up by an increasingly politicised civil service, where individuals are ‘incentivised’ to make greater year-on-year savings . ‘Career’ (executive stream?) offices will have no great desire to serve in the MOD on 5 year tours as it will damage their advancement prospects within their own Services (apart from the appeal of spending 5 years living in a dingy squat/SFA in Bushy).

As a by-product of all of this (and I am not appealing to the tin-foil hat brigade here), the Service Chiefs will no longer be in Whitehall but reside at their operational HQs, and even fewer SP will serve in MB. This is the first time since before Samuel Pepys’ time that the heads of the Services have not been in Whitehall (or the Strand, as in the case of the RAF in 1918). This is a cataclysmic shift in power and presence of the key apparatus of State. Perhaps the MOD and HQ UKDF will be rusticated (like the BBC) to, oh, Tyneside or (in an effort to appeal to the independent-minded Scots) Clydebank.

But then again, I could be dreaming this Kafkesque-like nightmare.

[Grumpy106]

Most of the DRU report makes sense to me. Moving joint areas (Cyber, CIS, Comms) to a Joint HQ will save manpower and avoid duplication; however, I am somewhat at a loss as to why moving the Service Chiefs out of MOD will improve efficiency. Culling 'stars' makes sense as we have too many (across the Services), but only having one uniformed representative on the Defence Board does seem to put a lot more power in the hands of the Civil Servants. Guess we'll have to wait for the detail.

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking at the RAAF strength of arounf 15k and 3* Chief of Air Force, a 4* in the RAF looks about right, but two 4*?

[jindabyne]

Am I off the mark, or is there a strong whiff of the well-structured (IMHO) Australian model throughout the DRU? Whatever, my first scan gives me a first impression that the easily digestible report makes remarkably good sense and is highly timely.

Hopefully it will not be imminently accompanied by any further scaling down of war-fighting capability. Should that occur, then the DRU might need to reconvene with a view to even further organisational slimming-down:(

[LXGB]

Just had a quick skim through the Defence Reform Report (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B4BA14C0-0F2E-4B92-BCC7-8ABFCFE7E000/0/defence_reform_report_struct_mgt_mod_27june2011.pdf) They're very keen on contractors aren't they!

[Widger]

I think that it is a very well written and overdue report (no, I didn't write it). I suggest those who are throwing bricks, might like to read the report and once they have finished also go and read Bernard Gray's report on Defence acquisition as well. The main points, which I welcome, are:

Removal of the single service chiefs from main building who were always a hurdle to progress, forever bringing single service politics into any issue rather than, as the report states, what is best for Defence. The single services will now have their own budgets and also have their feet held to the fire to manage them - no more blaming the other services for failure.

JFCOM taking on the role of SRO for things like ISTAR etc, which will allow a much more balanced approach to such capabilities, rather than the RAF fighting with the Army over who controls UAVS, some vision and clarity for the future and some development of a maritime/deployable/Litorral ISTAR capability.

Significant reduction in the Capability Sponsor areas, which involved huge numbers of people, just manipulating money every year. A complete waste of resource and time.

Refocus of the Headquarters on Strategic and financial issues rather than the long screwdrivering it has conducted up to now, even getting involved in PJHQ and FLC business.

Lord Levene gives a very good summary at the end of why previous attempts have on the whole, failed. His recommendations include ensuring that Senior Appointments get more scrutiny, those underperforming get the sack and that those same people are held to account to a Defence Board that does not have single service influences.

All in all, a very welcome report which should be embraced in full, along with Bernard Gray's reforms.

[GICASI]

Getting quite close to a paper what I wrote (sic). In brief:

CDS & CJO - 4*
NATO Officers - 4*/3* - as required by symbolism (stay > the Phlegms)
Service Heads - 3*

So, for the RAF, this would mean:

CinC - 3*

DCinC/AMP - 2*

AOC Pointy Group - 1*

AOC Eating/Rotary/Enablers Group - 1*

AOC Trg & JPA Group -1*

COS Pointy Group - gp capt

COS Eating/Rotary/Enablers Group - gp capt

COS Trg & JPA Group - gp capt

Wing (ie MOB) Commander - wg cdr

Sqn Cdr - sqn ldr

Flt Cdr - flt lt

Lever puller - fg off

OIC coffee bar/nurses & teachers for parties/gaffes/drafting letters of apology - plt off

Chuck in transitional pay & pension relief and Bob ist dein Onkel. Admittedly, I haven’t fully thought the implementation part owing to crushing apathy; however, that’s the shape the Services need to be - provided - the grotesquely bloated Civil Service hierarchy is similarly pruned.

[Widger]

Pontious,

That's not quite how I read it. Extarct from the report below:

conducting their own force development process to propose, in their Command
Plan, optimum, affordable force structure (including equipment) which will best
deliver the Defence Board’s requirements;
• the development and generation of their Service to ensure it is balanced to deliver
Defence outputs now and in the future. This would include recruiting, educating,
training, equipping, preparing and sustaining ther Service;
• running their Service and the Command TLB – being accountable for delivering
agreed outputs within their delegated budget – making choices, within the
framework of the Command Plan and the corporate framework set out in part 8,
about the best balance between manpower, training, equipment, support etc and
between different capability areas;
• acting as the customer for CDM, setting the detailed equipment and support
requirements and budgets, and articulating their infrastructure requirements for
delivery by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation;

and the report specifically mentions the transfer of CAP personnel on the second floor back to the FLCs.

[Blacksheep]

Speaking as a citizen, the first (and some say the only) duty of a government is defence of the state against external aggression. What I see in the present and proposed arrangements is the capability for participating in foreign intervention coalitions. I don't see in the present arrangements much (or even any) sign of defence against outside aggression. We're an island nation: where is the control of our airspace? or our coastal waters? or our sea lanes - the veins that carry our lifeblood as one old, bold Prime Minister once called them.

What also alarms me is that the members of the armed forces here present seem satisfied with the lack of true "defensive" capability and are only arguing about what form the command structure for our future wimpish little international intervention force should be. Personally, I'd be happy to have dozens of Air Chief Marshals sitting round the board table of the Air Council debating the training and deployment of our hundreds of front line squadrons, while down the road, Admirals and Generals were doing similar "force projection studies" for the more than one million men and women in uniform, defending our nation.

But we can't afford that. Dream on BS... There isn't enough money in the kitty to defend ourselves and pay the bankers. :rolleyes:

[Mr Grim]

Also follow the USAF model with two wg cdrs on a unit. One running the base the other running the wing


Don't know which unit you are referring to - most USAF sqns and units are way more over ranked than RAF ones. A sqn will usually have several lt-cols on it and a wing will be rife with lt cols all over the place. Majs hardly get a word in.

There seems to be a strange view amongst some that the RAF is over ranked just because sqn ldrs don't lead sqns. In fact the RAF is the same as, or more conservative than, similar sized air forces, get over the rank names, it could be our first "tradition"!

[CrabInCab]

Hear this every time yet funnily enough when you head out to the 'stan we all seem to have roughly the same size commands at the same rank. Arguably OC AH and OC CH have slightly larger commands. All would seem to debunk the widely held theory that an RAF Flt should be commanded by a Flt Lt when it is 4 times the size of an AAC Flt that is also commanded by a Capt. All CHF SK Sqn Cdrs are Cdrs too I believe.

[Jabba_TG12]

Hmmm.


"no organisational model can work unless its senior leadership takes the tough decisions that reconcile ambition with reality. Some of the perceived problems of the current model are simply symptoms of the friction caused by the lack of such decisions in the past."

Very true.

The general thrust of it, I dont see much issue with; Personally, I've been keen on the idea of top to bottom reform for quite some time.

The only slight concern is (apart from if it is achieved rather than being resisted at every turn/kicked into the long grass) that although successful implementation of it may leave us with an arguably better management structure and hopefully, if Gray's procurement reforms are seen through, what of the overall balance of the entire package at the moment and our abilities to respond to events both in UK and regionally (also FI) in the meantime. The lack of the true S in SDSR, with it being a Treasury led scalping exercise and the disjointed withdrawl/drawdown of capabilities/capability holidays/sabbaticals leaves us, in my very humble opinion with a number of years where we are going to be at significantly reduced capability and therefore more vulnerable than what we should be.

Granted, I know Gordon lied about his money tree and the tories are no better than New Liebore, but nonetheless... we've said it so often and although it is always tempered by political realism and a degree of hard won cynicism, the first duty of government is the security and defence of the nation.

Seems like a move in the right direction though. Hope it works.

[Jimlad1]

I read the report and thought it was balanced, well argued and a sensible package of proposals. The issue of the DB is completely overblown by journalists who don't understand what the DB does - the DB will in future provide political direction, and top level strategic management to Defence - the board will only have CDS, PUS, DG Fin, CDM Ministers and 3 Non executive directors on it. So I make that the head of the armed forces (Mil), the head of the MOD CS (PUS), 1 CS post (DG Fin) and one rotational (CDM) which seems to be either Mil or CS depending on who is right for the job. The Non Exec Directors will be independents to provide guidance - so in other words we have no CS dominance at all.

The DB sets the top level strategic direction and leaves it to CDS to tell the COSSAF committee (where the 3 service chiefs will now sit) what is required and then work out how to do it. Seems a fairly sensible compromise to me - lets pay the service chiefs to run their service, rather than spend the time engaging in whitehall warfare.

The report is tough reading for some because it looks harshly at some sacred cows, is tough on noting that the MOD is to blame for its financial problems and that actually a lot of our problems lie closer to home than many of us would usually admit. It doesnt sugarcoat, it does note things that many won't like (such as the fact that a lot of jobs done by Mil could be done far more cheaply by CS and deliver the same effect) and that actually we need to change radically to keep up to speed.

Sadly this very sensible balanced report is being lost amidst the stupid cries of 'CS are stealing all the power' which a quick read would show is completely untrue. Perhaps if people spent less time beleiving the tabloid BS about the report, and more time reading the report then they'd calm down - although then they wouldnt be able to be outraged, which frankly is outrageous in itself...

[ghostnav]

Look on the bright side - with only one military on the DB, we will know who to blame for any cost overspends! It will not be the military.

As for modelling on the Australian system - one has to ask if it is true - why? What war (air wise) were they last in - Vietnam or Korea?

US Bases - led by about 6 to 7 Colonels - not Lt Cols!

And if we are to cull stars, why did this last review open up ANOTHER Command? And from what I read in Janes, there might be another Joint Command on the way.

[SOSL]

I have just finished reading the Levene paper and I agree with Widger and Jimlad - it is a well written and sensible document which puts forward practical and useful recommendations. If they are implemented as a package, as the paper urges, there is a very good chance that UK Defence could be transformed for the better. Interestingly, aside from the headline grabbers (Chiefs of staff to go to Cmd HQs; abolition of C-in-Cs) a large part of the recommendations are evolutionary and simply extend measures that have already been accepted by the defence community. So, to answer my own question - "Yes but with caveats".

[Roland Pulfrew]

In the RAF case, being a far smaller organisation especially on our small MOB, I suggest the same wing commander as commander of a wing be just that, a Wg Cdr.

PN. They are. OC Ops Wg, OC Eng Wg and OC Base Support (Admin) Wg all led by wg cdrs.

Not sure which USAF bases you used to visit but Google any US Base on the af.mil domain. Choose "Library > Biographies" and have a look at how many Colonels (Gp Capts) are on each base!! Their "wgs" are no longer led by wing commanders.

[Climebear]

PN

GICASI, the kicker in your list is of course the sqn cdr at sqn ldr level. The rank was inflated to give pay for the responsibility. The solution, where we discussed it before, is to reduce sqn UE and AE by half but at the same time double the number of sqns

Could be easier than that. For FJ and SH Sqns simply retitle them as wings with each of the flights (currently commanded by sqn ldrs) becoming squadrons. ie next Typhoon FGR4 unit to form at Leuchars could be 125 Expeditionary Air Wing (what we currently call EAWs are - until deployed - Expeditionary Air Combat Service Support Units) That could comprise:

HQ Sqn - Comprising ExecO, QWI, Ops, Admin etc

Wg Eng O (formerly SEngo) with Wg WO, Eng Ops

43(F) Sqn commanded by a sqn ldr comprising:

Flying Flt - Aircrew, commanded by Senior Flt Lt

Eng Flt - Commanded by Flt Lt (formerly JEngO)with a FS and associated Techs

Chicken Flt commanded by a cockerel

111(F) Sqn with the same compostition as 43(F) Sqn less poultry

Each flying station would then comprise 3-4 EAWs, 3 support wings, with, possibly, a Force Protection Wg as well. Now you could call that collection of wings - commanded by a group captain/air commodore - something like a Group -13 Gp for Leuchars even.

HQ AIR command could become Royal Air Force HQ commanded by the Chief of the Air Staff with his 2x 3* DCASs. Leaving the current 2* groups as 2* Commands each comprising a number of groups - Air Combat (1 Gp (Marham), 2 Gp (Lossiemouth), 8 Gp (Waddington) 11 Gp (Coningsby) 13 Gp (Leuchars) (deliberately avoiding the LEU/LOS debate)), Air Support (38 Gp (Brize Norton), 18 Gp (SAR Force - for now) with FP and ACSSUs (these 'could' be given gp status as well), Training (with numbered groups at Valley, Linton, Cranwell, Halton...)?

At a stroke, visibly regaining some of our heritage with very little effort.

[SAMXXV]

Blacksheep hit the nail on the head. Quote:

"Speaking as a citizen, the first (and some say the only) duty of a government is defence of the state against external aggression. What I see in the present and proposed arrangements is the capability for participating in foreign intervention coalitions. I don't see in the present arrangements much (or even any) sign of defence against outside aggression. We're an island nation: where is the control of our airspace? or our coastal waters? or our sea lanes - the veins that carry our lifeblood as one old, bold Prime Minister once called them."

What defences does the UK have today? During the Cold War our Armed Forces were totally (& correctly) geared to defence of our island. We had F4's on QRA in the UK & at RAF Wildenrath in Germany. We had Harriers at RAF Gutersloh, Jaguars at RAF Bruggen, several hundred Main Battle Tanks at various German locations, Rapier at all RAFG airfields for local airfield defence, 2 squadrons of Bloodhound SAM's with a range of 85 miles to 60,000ft in the UK & at Wildenrath, Bruggen & Laarbruch, 48 Tornados at Laarbruch with H-Bombs & a REAL Navy with Aircraft Carriers/ Harriers. We also had a Nimrod force armed with (admittedly US provided/maintained weapons) nuclear depth charges & the "Stealthy " 51 Sqn at RAF Wyton. (And probably a lot more that I have forgotten!)

Today we have an OFFENSIVE Royal Air Force with its expensive but poorly supported maintenance (by civilian contractors - what a disaster), a miniscule OFFENSIVE submarine fleet (armed & supported by the USA) & virtually no heavy armour within the army.

Our skies are policed by "Fighter Controllers" watching outdated & obsolete radar pictures whereas the USAF has "Over the Horizon" radar due to their pumping billions into the latest technology. There should no longer be a need for an idiot on the ground in an underground bunker getting a radar display, to tell an attack pilot "Turn Port 3 degrees - target 40 miles"! Nowadays this can be satellite fed direct to the weapon platform.

The MOD is living in the dark ages, run by Dinosaur Senior Officers, whose only desire is to see out their days in MOD Main Building drawing their Central London allowances & having free accomodation by Admiralty Arch.

Without significant investment in a new long range SAM system, proper upgrading of the Typhoon weapon systems, Refitting the 2 Aircraft Carriers & bring the Harriers out of mothballs & having a complete re-think of the role of the Army there is absolutely no hope for any form of defence of the UK.

But hey ho - It doesn't really matter. With no immigration controls & over 3 million "dubious characters" allowed into the UK - many who would strangely blow themselves (&, hopefully, you) up, we have lost our security.

Go Think. (The ravings of a man who realised 20 years ago that he wouldn't trust a single MP - unless that MP had put his life on the line in the Armed Forces. I've yet to meet one....)

[SOSL]

So much pontification! Doesn't anyone care about whats happening?

[Pontius Navigator]

SOSL, probably not. Now why would the plebs not be overly concerned with a fallingn star count?

Reflect on how many stars you see in a year or ever even.

One notable day at Waddo our star count was about 12. On most units you are lucky if it is between 2 and 6.

How many non-RAF stars are seen by light blue personnel?

My brown star count is I believe four and that because I had to deliver a box of oranges to Flag Staff House and we were hosted by the Governor of Guernsey. Dark blue is about two IIRC, also in Guernsey.

Best star count had to be the Waddo dining in night followed by Runnymede last year when it was well in to double figures.

Given the total star count on the books they are invisible on the ground and most visible when 4* like CAS and CinC do a farewell jolly round the houses by which time any finger poking becomes pointless.

Remember the old days when any strange aircraft dropping in may be the AOC or CinC on a casual visit?

[cazatou]

PN

The "Good old days" - IIRC the most "Stars" I had on a single flight was 47 back in the '80s. On the other hand I flew 80 MP's and Lords to Normandy for the 40th Anniversary of D-Day in 1984.

[high spirits]

Eleven o' rife anyone?

I had 48 stars on board... Sewn into the knee high dress of the blonde CSE show clacker.....:ok:

[cazatou]

hs

Looking at your profile it say's that you have not made any friends yet -

I WONDER WHY?.:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

caz, I take both your points :)

But I see no one is disagreeing with my point yet.

[high spirits]

Caz,
Look it up, it gets better after you consume more vino tinto...I'm not sure I need cyber-mates.

Lighten up fella:}

[jindabyne]

As for modelling on the Australian system - one has to ask if it is true - why? What war (air wise) were they last in - Vietnam or Korea?

During the Iraq War, 14 F/A-18s from No75 Squadron operated in the escort and ground attack roles, flying a total of 350 sorties and dropping 122 laser guided bombs.