Bonfire of the Generals

[ORAC]

Grauniad: Ministry of Defence set to cull top jobs, according to leak (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/18/ministry-of-defence-jobs-cull)

'Top heavy' department will have to axe more than 700 posts in next three years and another 335 before 2020, says document

The Ministry of Defence has become so "top heavy" with senior ranking officers and civil servants that it will have to axe more than 700 top posts in the next three years, and another 335 before 2020, according to a confidential document leaked to the Guardian. The cull will include rear admirals, major generals and air vice-marshals, as well as scores of more junior officers, such as captains and colonels, and civilians of similar seniority.

The scale of the cuts needed to balance the budget is set out in a document prepared by Jonathan Slater, the director general of transformation and strategy within the MoD. Slater sets out why the department has become so bloated in recent years and urges quick action to address the problem. The leaked document, titled Defence Reform – Liability Review, was sent to senior officials last month and is unusually blunt in tone.

"The simple truth is that the defence senior cadre is larger than we can afford, is judged to be out of proportion with a reducing manpower base and also with modern working practices and societal tolerances." It adds: "The perception, both within and beyond the department, that defence is bureaucratic and top heavy must be addressed. It undermines the confidence of our own staff, parliament, the public and media, and has a detrimental impact on the delivery of frontline and other defence outputs. Put simply, the size of the defence workforce has fallen over recent decades, but reductions in the numbers of leaders has not kept pace … the UK has a higher proportion of senior officers than the majority of our allies."

The document says the size of the most senior cadre within the MoD – one star and above – has risen by a third since 1990, and states there are too many layers in the present structures. "There is an urgent need to reduce our manpower costs … reductions must be reflected at all levels of the hierarchy," it adds. Slater sets out some of the ideas the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force will have to adopt to get the numbers down – including a "presumption that the lowest possible rank should be used" for tasks – "commensurate with levels of risk". The service chiefs have also been told to "identify which posts currently filled by the military might be delivered as effectively as a civilian … military posts should be limited to those requiring specific military skills and experience".

The number of support staff for senior ranking officers also needs to be thinned out, the document warns. In a section headlined Indicative Reductions, Slater says he does not intend to set arbitrary targets for cuts – but then gives specific ones. He sets out in a table what he regards as the minimum requirement and indicates he will need a lot of convincing if the services disagree. "The expectation is that the senior cadre would fall in accordance with the table … there may be reasons why this should not be the case, but these will need to be set out."

There are currently 3,620 middle-ranking civil servants and military officers – including Royal Navy captains, army colonels and RAF group captains. That number needs to have dropped to 3,011 by 2015, and to 2,724 by 2020. This would mean axing 68 navy posts, 104 in the army and 86 in the airforce. The next level up are the one and two star officers, and their civil service equivalents. Slater says the numbers holding the one star rank need to be cut from 550 to 461 by 2015, and to 423 by 2020. For those holding two stars, including rear admirals, major generals and air vice-marshals, the totals need to be cut from 152 to 126, and then to 116. Changes to the structure and responsibilities of the small number of the military's most senior officers – those with three and four star ranks – have been dealt with in separate reforms published earlier this year by Lord Levene.

This leaked document warns the service chiefs and civil service leaders that there can be no wriggling out of making tough decisions. "I recognise that you will all be coming from different start points. However [the reforms] should be judged against two truths. There will be an expectation that our numbers of senior officers will drop in broad proportion with overall personnel reductions, and that our current ratio of senior cadre to personnel is too high."

The MoD has already announced plans that could see up to 60,000 military personnel and civil servants axed over the next seven years – it starts the second tranche of a redundancy programme in January. But no details of what will happen in the higher ranks has been revealed until now. The sheer number of posts that need to go will provoke fresh consternation within the military – and among union leaders who believe the MoD is already suffering the effects of job cuts.

The MoD has been told it has until the spring to finalise its plans for job losses in the senior cadre, though it is unclear at this stage whether the loss of so many posts will inevitably lead to compulsory redundancies.

The MoD said it would not comment on figures in a leaked email. A spokesperson added: "The current redundancy programme will reduce the number of service personnel, both officers and junior ranks, to ensure the armed forces are structured to best meet current and emerging threats. Following the Levene proposals the defence reform unit is conducing a review of senior officer posts to ensure the services are not top heavy."

[November4]

middle-ranking civil servants and military officers – including Royal Navy captains, army colonels and RAF group captains.

And there was me thinking that those ranks were classed as senior officers

About time too...

[Melchett01]

"identify which posts currently filled by the military might be delivered as effectively as a civilian … military posts should be limited to those requiring specific military skills and experience"

And of course, come the day that those posts are required in theatre what will happen? We either can't deploy civvies because it's too dangerous or we will have to hike their pay to such levels that it becomes unaffordable. I remember having arguments with Bosses back in the UK who wanted a capabilty improving and unreliability issues resolved, but refused to send the contractors who serviced and fixed the kit out to Theatre because of both the afformentioned reasons. We ended up going round in circles for weeks with the contractors telling use we couldn't do anything to the kit (even thought it was u/s), whilst simultaneously negotiating some no doubt eye watering contractual ammendment before they would fly out to Theatre.

When will these clowns realise that yes, defence like all insurance is expensive, but doing it on the cheap is dangerous. Keep going at this rate, and Defence will be nothing more than a cross between slightly agressive camping and the Home Guard. I'm sure Mr Slater is very good at reading the bottom line on a balance sheet, but probably far less understanding of the concept that Defence's bottom line is about slightly more intangible issues such as brining home the same number of people from an op that you went out with.

Then again, that probably isn't too much of an issue for unelected officials whose biggest worry is whether or not the 0733 from some green and leafy suburb is running on time.

[racedo]

How dare they !!!!!!!!!

Cutting the lesser ranks is ok but how dare they cut the people who do nothing.............do people not know how this is supposed to work.:cool:

[Stitchbitch]

We could always just do what we used to do in earlier times and use the rank = job method. P/O = pilots an aeroplane on the squadron, Flt /Lt = commands a flight of pilots, Sqn/Ldr = commands the squadron, W/Cdr = commands a base containing the squadrons, G/C = a ... you get the point. Should work for blunt types too.:}

[althenick]

We could always just do what we used to do in earlier times and use the rank = job method. P/O = pilots an aeroplane on the squadron, Flt /Lt = commands a flight of pilots, Sqn/Ldr = commands the squadron, W/Cdr = commands a base containing the squadrons, G/C = a ... you get the point. Should work for blunt types too

Crikey! - apply that to the RN and we'd have four-ringers commanding P2000 patrol boats!

[Easy Street]

We could always just do what we used to do in earlier times and use the rank = job method.Yaaaawwwnnnn.... ever heard of Wg Cdr Guy Gibson, OC 617 Sqn? Or Gp Capt Leonard Cheshire, Stn Cdr RAF Marston Moor? Both examples of 'the way it was done in earlier times'. Indeed Cheshire went on to command 617 Sqn as a Gp Capt!

Most modern Sqns are many times bigger (in both aircraft and numbers of personnel) than the sqns which were commanded by Sqn Ldrs in the early days of the RAF. In fact, many modern RAF Sqns are broadly similar in size to WW2-era bomber sqns, which were typically commanded by..... Wg Cdrs!

[AGS Man]

Yawnnnnnnnnn, I've heard of OC 617 Sqn, Acting Wing Commander Gibson. Most Bomber Command Squadron Commanders held acting rank.
As for pruning off senior Officers it would be interesting to know how many, for example Air rank Officers there are in relation to how many combat aircraft we have. It's been noted for many years that the RN have a lot more Captains than they have ships.

[A and C]

So looking at this the other way it it not time for some NCO pilots ?

[charliegolf]

So looking at this the other way it it not time for some NCO pilots ?

Er, why does the RAF need pilots. At the moment?

CG

[Courtney Mil]

Melchett. I concur.

[force_ale]

Hopefully the new 1* coming to Brize can task his 2 Group Captains to find a way to trim the 22 Wing Commanders there.

[Courtney Mil]

The best thing to do is to axe the really senior posts so that they retire early on full pay. That way they get rid of the people in the MoD who immediately stop coming to work, still pay them the same and then have to hire more civil servants to do the work. Brilliant!

:rolleyes:

[glojo]

In answer to the query regarding the Royal Navy it looks like there are approximately EIGHT sea going commanding officers with the substantive rank of Captain, this is likely to fluctuate as the fleet shrinks. ;)

Finding the total number of these senior officers on the payroll is more difficult but as of last year there was TWO HUNDRED and TWENTY TWO (222) No doubt both the Army and Air Force will have a similar number of officers holding the equivalent rank. Incidentally most shore establishments will have a captain in command

One aircraft carrier
2 x Type 45's
Antartic Patrol Ship
One Frigate
3 x LPH\LPD

My eye-sight is not perfect so apologies if there is a slight discrepancy.

[Pontius Navigator]

How about forming a Gobble of Turkeys to vote for Christmas then?

[jamesdevice]

"In fact, many modern RAF Sqns are broadly similar in size to WW2-era bomber sqns,"
Who are you trying to kid? A WWII bomber squadron could have 20+ serviceable aircraft PLUS those being worked on by the repair teams
You'd be hard pushed to get that number of aircraft in the air for the whole Tornado force now
I agree the manpower per squadron is probably higher now though...

[Widger]

During the 90s there was an inexorable creep in ranks in the RN, mainly to gain parity with the RAF. Squadrons that were commanded by Lieutenant Commanders suddenly got Commanders, Stations that were commanded by Captains got Commodores.

The Army in particular are overborne. they even have a 1* in charge of sport! I think at the last count they had something like 100 1*s from which they could choose the best to promote. The RAF and the RN have a much smaller pot to choose from, hence very few senior RN Officers get to the top in the MoD. IMHO!

[teeteringhead]

But Widger, for historical reasons the officer rank pyramids have been vastly different shapes.

The Army had (relatively) fewer command posts at full Colonel, while the RAF and the RN had lots. Similarly, Army had (relatively) lots of 1* posts compared to the other two services.

Recall that until recently in t'Army it was possibly to be promoted directly from Lt Col to Brigadier, and in the RN from 4 Ring Captain straight to Rear Adm.

And there remains a shadow of the historical differences in the pay scales. The big jumps (in RAF speak) are from sqn ldr to wg cdr and from gp capt to air cdre - precisely because the Army pattern is followed and their big (=good) command tours are at Lt Col and Brig level - many a newly promoted gp capt has had his joy lessened by the meagre pay rise - even worse when coupled with a loss/decrease in Flying Pay .......

Remember once briefing a new Stn Cdr on my major 2dry Duty on his Stn. He was sat there in the big office, feet on desk, biting his fingernails (narrows it down for those who know!) He was reading his first pay chit as a groupie.

Staish: Bl%%dy hell Teeters, why do you get more f:mad:ing Flying pay than I do?
Teeters: Well Sir, it's probably because I do a lot more f:mad:ing flying than you do!

(collapse of OC A and SWO [both female] who were in attendance!)

[A and C]

I would agree with you that the RAF is not in need of pilots at the moment but things will move on and if the aim is to move responsabiltity to the lowest suitable rank then surely NCO pilots would be a logical step.

[teeteringhead]

Often been studied and the results seem to indicate that - counter intuitively - SNCO pilots are not cheaper. They are not much less expensive in terms of Ts & Cs, and typically do not serve as long (5 years fewer on average), which redresses the pay differential.

That said, the last formal study in the RAF (that I am aware of) was more than 10 years ago - maybe we need to look again ........?

[sisemen]

Should work for blunt types too.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Now I know this is showing my age - but bear with me - I'm sure that there is the equivalent in today's RAF.......

Flt Lt - OC Personnel Services Flight,OC Supply Control & Accounting Flight, OC Catering Flight

Sqn Ldr - OC Personnel Management Squadron, OC Supply Squadron

Wg Cdr - OC Admin Wing

... but you get the point - don't you????

[minigundiplomat]

Melchett,

A sqn arrives in location X at the start of an operation, headed by a Sqn Ldr or Wg Cdr, and everything works fine.

The operation expands and before we know it, there is a brace of one stars and a HQ element with swathes of OF4 and above, many of whom (note:not all) seem to serve little purpose other than collecting a medal, getting an op on their SJAR, using precious resources and generally acting as an ocean going handbrake.

I've seen it over and over, and you only need to throw a bread roll gently in any direction in a DFAC to see how many Sqn Ldr's and above you hit, as they munch through rations before returning to the HQ 200m away in their personal vehicle to bugger something else up, or create work to get noticed.

(Stand fast the small percentage who do actually achieve something)

This bonfire is much needed, and if you think it's a bad idea then I think we can guess which camp you're in.

[Melchett01]

MGD,

Just to get my credentials out of the way to start with, I am not one of the senior officers likely being referred to and I am never likely to be one. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that we have probably shared the same bird table at Bastion. In my case, CR almost certainly means ceiling reached, so I don't even have a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

We are indeed top heavy and as you rightly say, thinning out some of the medal-hunters and yes men is probably a good thing. But I would ask you to re-read my post, very specifically the part of the article I quoted at the top. If anyone thinks a bonfire of the generals will stop with the generals, I think they are mistaken; this will go right down the commissioned ranks and have a far greater impact than the headlines suggest.

Imagine the scenario: Mr Slater makes his comments about pruning the top ranks. The top ranks eager to preserve pensions, knighthoods and potential future directorships close ranks and argue that you can't do that without adversely impacting on the promotion pyramid. Fine says Mr Slater, we'll get rid of more officers down the pyramid to maintain career prospects, but you lot are still in the firing line. At a stroke, the MOD civil service and the Treasury get exactly what they want - the opportunity to make even further cuts, either axing posts full stop or replacing military personnel with civil servants and contractors.

And that is the crux of my post. This will be a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. Slater and his chums believing that military personnel are too expensive are handed even more of us on a plate than they had intended to cut in the first place. We will be left with expensive contractors and civil servants who you either can't deploy or refuse to deploy without significant expense. I have seen it happen in Iraq; I fought to get a capabilty on line during ops only to be blocked by the contractors refusing to come in country in without their company first renegotiating T&Cs. The Armed Forces are just that - armed forces, not civil servants or contractors. If you are relying on civil servants and contractors to carry out a military role, I'm afraid the politicians may well end up with a rather nasty surprise. A recent article in Janes Defence Review analysed the increasing use of contractors in the military, looking specifically at ISR as a case study. There are quite a few civvie UAV operators out in theatre, mostly doing launch and recovery, but a few providing full mission capabilities. But when asked if they would be prepared to fire on insurgents or carry out intelligence work that lead to kinetic operations, a significant number of them suggested those roles were more appropriate for the military to carry out.

All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. This measure, whilst no doubt well intentioned - or as well intentioned as you can get when your sole aim is to amputate significant chunks of the patient - will come and bite us on the arse a few years down the line. It would also be interesting to know exactly how many civil service equivalent posts will be going in the bonfire.

[Widger]

We are indeed top heavy and as you rightly say, thinning out some of the medal-hunters and yes men is probably a good thing. But I would ask you to re-read my post, very specifically the part of the article I quoted at the top. If anyone thinks a bonfire of the generals will stop with the generals, I think they are mistaken; this will go right down the commissioned ranks and have a far greater impact than the headlines suggest.

As long as all those who are left are fast jet pilots, because they are the only ones with the brain capacity/capability to be the future leaders of the RAF!

:ok:

[Melchett01]

I know it's Christmas Widger, but isn't it a little early in the day to be starting on the Absinthe? :E

[minigundiplomat]

Apologies Melchett, not too much undeserved scorching from the bonfire I hope. However, I hope their is a trimming of the entire officer corps [note: trimming not purge].
It has grown bloated in the last 15 - 20 years and many would not be missed, especially in some branches. Many manage to fit the category I described in my earlier post at home as well as whilst deployed.

Whilst we sit at either end of arc, I suspect the ideal is somewhere in the middle, though probably the last solution the MOD will apply.

[glojo]

During the 90s there was an inexorable creep in ranks in the RN, mainly to gain parity with the RAF. Squadrons that were commanded by Lieutenant Commanders suddenly got Commanders, Stations that were commanded by Captains got Commodores.

The Army in particular are overborne. they even have a 1* in charge of sport! I think at the last count they had something like 100 1*s from which they could choose the best to promote. The RAF and the RN have a much smaller pot to choose from, hence very few senior RN Officers get to the top in the MoD. IMHO!

Interesting post now in 2011,
One Rear Admiral Chief of Staff (Aviation) plus Rear Admiral Fleet Air Arm (same officer),
Commodore down west,
Captain at Yeovil,
Approximately 19 squadrons, 8 of which are commanded by a Commander, one by a Lt Col Royal Marines and the rest are all Lt Cdr. plus one Major RM (public records).

Captain ....................... Commando Helicopter Force
Commander .................... Merlin Helicopter Force
Commander ................... Lynx Helicopter Force
Commander ................... Sea King Helicopter Force
Commander ................ Fleet Forward Support Squadron

[APG63]

Evey time something like this happens they end up getting the numbers completely out of balance, which screws up the demographics. We end up with a void or a bulge trying to work its way up the pyramid, or the top of the pyramid ends up out of whack with the rest and no one gets promoted. This time, they'll burn the top and that will "suck" up a load of new promotees to fill the new posts they start to create again after the purge.

Don't think I'm going to make one star.

[Geehovah]

It's funny looking back at your own career. At times it was clear. As a junior nav, I had absolutely no influence over anything, including the direction in which my aircraft was moving! Later in my career I had command over what I thought was a lot but in reality, was not much. I had control, at times, over an empire yet limited command. Geography was a wonderful leveller! And ........... I had the occasional delusional moment!

The Air Force is a complex structure and promotion is based on a traditional model. We all know what it takes to stride, majestically, up the slippery slope. Some are good; some are clever and some just won't play the game.

Whichever way this new system pans out, it'll be a lot different to the model I knew as a Fg Off!

[Courtney Mil]

Geehovah. If you were flying with me at the time, your lack of influence wasn't your fault. Sorry about that.

I'm starting to see some familiar aspects of your career.

When I left, not long ago, it wasn't because I didn't love it, I did! So it was with slightly mixed feelings. But with everything that's going on new, I think I chose my moment well.

Courtney

[NutLoose]

Quote :
We could always just do what we used to do in earlier times and use the rank = job method.
Yaaaawwwnnnn.... ever heard of Wg Cdr Guy Gibson, OC 617 Sqn? Or Gp Capt Leonard Cheshire, Stn Cdr RAF Marston Moor? Both examples of 'the way it was done in earlier times'. Indeed Cheshire went on to command 617 Sqn as a Gp Capt!

Most modern Sqns are many times bigger (in both aircraft and numbers of personnel) than the sqns which were commanded by Sqn Ldrs in the early days of the RAF. In fact, many modern RAF Sqns are broadly similar in size to WW2-era bomber sqns, which were typically commanded by..... Wg Cdrs!


Of course Post WW2 they also had a big rank restructuring as they were top heavy with higher ranks and those wishing to remain in the RAF often found they had to drop several ranks to fit the new structure of the RAF, perhaps another such cull is overdue :p

[Courtney Mil]

Nutloose, if they take up your idea, I'm now really glad I left when I did.

Anyway, stupid idea. JPAC could never cope with all the changes. A wg cdr becoming a flt lt would still be paid as a wg cdr for about a year and then would have so much over-pay to be recovered that he'd never pay it off. :ooh:

[Rosevidney1]

I don't fully understand just how or why we ended up with a ridiculously over-ranked structure, nor why it is necessary to have crammed them into MoD, but it is long past time to remedy the mess we now find ourselves in.

[dallas]

I've seen it over and over, and you only need to throw a bread roll gently in any direction in a DFAC to see how many Sqn Ldr's and above you hit, as they munch through rations before returning to the HQ 200m away in their personal vehicle to bugger something else up, or create work to get noticed
I noticed this at Al Udeid when I was there; it was mainly SO3s who, once they realised they were closer than normal to a 1*, seemed to become infected with chisselerism - jostling with their peers to impress 'dad' with their enthusiam for the latest fashionable 'good idea'. Fortunately few people can remain pure chisselers for a sustained period and it was funny watching some of them run out of steam as their flight home approached, often leaving some bolleaux in their wake that was stopped the minute their jet was off the ground.

One good thing to come out of it: I promised myself I would leave the Service at first opportunity rather than risk being anywhere more dangerous with these thrusters, and so far it's worked out quite well :8

[passpartout]

How many 'stars' are there in each service?

WARNING!! Maths in public alert...

If, for argument's sake, there are 125 'starred' officers in the RAF, that must be a total of what, 200 'stars'?

Before redundancies, there must be ~40,000 RAF personnel

That means there is a 'star' for every ~ 200 service(wo)men

God almighty! How about we make this more reasonable, one 'star' per 500? So we only need 80 'stars'

How about we let the RAF decide - 80 one-stars, or 20 four-stars - it's up to the high-paid help to decide how they dish out their 80 stars.

Of course, the other services have the same number of stars pro rata:\

Edit.. I suspect I'm being conservative with the distribution of 'stars'

[NutLoose]

Blimey, they must have taken onboard the McDonalds reward structure with all those Stars floating about.


http://i.ebayimg.com/t/McDonalds-Gold-Star-Collectible-Hat-Lapel-Pin-/12/!B12f5mQ!mk~$(KGrHqN,!g0E)743OiZtBMgFnVvNCQ~~_12.JPG

[jamesdevice]

does that mean Ronald McDomald is Chief of Defence Staff?

[NutLoose]

Nope, he recently got the Chop too..

[Melchett01]

does that mean Ronald McDomald is Chief of Defence Staff

No - Ronald McDonald wouldn't be seen dead in the new Army uniform :}

[racedo]

McDonalds has 85,000 employees, how soon will it have more than total armed forces:ugh:

[jamesdevice]

and at least McDonalds has a recognised training scheme

[ZH875]

But the food is still the same, sh*te

[jamesdevice]

For a country to be so overburdened with stars....is that a national vanity?
maybe we need an Admiral - or General - Savonarola?

[Mach Two]

Everyone's busy Googling that, JD. I didn't have to, of course, 'cos I know that he's Girolamo Savonarola, an Italian friar, born on (ooh, racking my brains now), oh, yes, 21 September 1452 and died 23 May 1498. Was that the one you meant?

[glojo]

Nope, he recently got the Chop too..

McDonald's don't do chops!:hmm:

[jamesdevice]

spot on Mach Two, glad to see there are still a few medievalists around
Now the next question is, whats the link?

[Mach Two]

OK, been reading up in him, erm, I mean scratching me head trying to remember. Is it to do with the bonfires of the vanities?

[jamesdevice]

excellent! 10/10

[Mach Two]

Who says Wikipedia isn't great? Burn the items of moral laxity!!!

Question now is, will this cull permanently correct the balance between stars and the rest of the officer corps or will we simply lose a load of senior chaps now only to have gapped posts that will be quietly re-filled once the heat is off?

[Fortissimo]

No, Mach 2. The gaps will be filled by civil servants, who will then make decisions based on their vast knowledge of all things military.

[Mach Two]

Oh, no. So we pay peanuts and we get... Not to worry, we may end up with no leadership, but at least we'll be saving money. Or will we? To pay redundancy to a 2 Star, plus his pension and then the pay of the CS that takes his role. Is that a saving?

[jamesdevice]

if we're burning generals, the civil servants can be the faggots to start the fire with

[Mach Two]

I'm guessing a faggot is like kindling, JD? Not a gay person or a meatball made with pork offal?

[SAMXXV]

As long as all those who are left are fast jet pilots, because they are the only ones with the brain capacity/capability to be the future leaders of the RAF!

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Would that be (Sir) Jock Stirrup? He of small brain cells - until it comes to looking after his pension? He has certainly left the RAF in the lurch in recent years.:mad:

[jamesdevice]

M2
precisely
however given many of the civil servants I've met it could also have the other meaning.

Actually the meaning has a dual source - comes from the days when heretics were burnt at the stake and it was a shame to waste a good fire, so any locals showing "deviant" tendencies were bound and tossed on the fire to get it burning properly

[Bismark]

....Captains became Commodores

The reason was that Air Stations (like the carriers) were commanded by Captains "over 6". These chaps were paid as 1*s but then Cdre was not a selective rank. That changed and the 1* rank became substantive.


Commodore down west,
Captain at Yeovil,

Other way round I think.

Rank of command should be based on responsibility and accountability. An airfield of 4,000 people and 100 aircraft seems reasonable for 1* command.

[Climebear]

Mach Two

RN/RM/RAF 2-stars and above and Army 1 stars and above are not subject to the redundancy schemes. For them, there is no guarantee of employment beyond their current tour. So no job to go to means out of the Service with normal terminal benefits; however in some cases they can be awarded a payment under the Directed Early Retirement (DER) Scheme.

Full details are in JSP 764 Part 6 Directed Early Retirement available on the internet (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D6648AC8-7D0B-4932-AB08-FA8F8DA8CBBA/0/JSP764_Part_6.pdf).

INTRODUCTION

0101. The DER Scheme enables the Armed Forces to pay compensation in specified circumstances when terminating a senior officer’s employment unexpectedly prior to the individual’s Normal Retirement Age (NRA).It applies to officers of 1-star rank and above.

CRITERIA FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION

0102. A Special Capital Payment (SCP) or Compensation Lump Sum (CLS) will be awarded under DER arrangements if the relevant Service is able to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of suitable employment becoming available for the officer within a reasonable timescale and it can be shown that the lack of availability of further employment is related to:

(a) the removal or regrading of a post after an individual has taken up the post or has been notified of appointment to it1, which could not have been foreseen or prevented at the time of appointment, and

(b) an unplanned reduction in the number of posts available to the Service (including potential joint appointments) which the officer was qualified to fill and which was caused by restructuring or changes in employment requirements within the Service or the Department or external employing organisation e.g. NATO, UN.
In any event, DER must represent value for money such that the net effect of any SCP or CLS is at worst case cost neutral but ideally results in a net saving to Defence.

Footnote 1 to Sub-para 0102a reads:

For Army officers of 1-star and above and for RN/RM and RAF officers of 2-star and above, the assumption will be that service will cease following the end of the current tour, without payment of a SCP, if no offer of further employment is made at least 6 months before the end of tour. This is reflected in the flowchart at Annex A.

[glojo]

No job security but they will either move into the so called civilianised post at a very nice salary PLUS their excellent pension. Or... they will get a directorship on the board of the many defence Contractors that are selling equipment to the MoD at exorbitant prices, my heart bleeds for them.

I also need someone to explain how we still need all these flag officers now that we are perhaps a 'Third World Military Force' that is being asked to fight wars with a blunt dagger in lieu of a razor sharp rapier :)

[glojo]

Other way round I think.Many apologies and good spotting, I blame my medication :uhoh::uhoh:

HMS Heron Commodore with a seniority from 30.06.07

HMS Seahawk Captain in command with exactly the same seniority date.

[[email protected]]

Climebear - does it say what that SCP or CLS is calculated against? Is it their potential future earnings given a full career at their present rank?

[teeteringhead]

Said it before and I'll say it again - too many ranks. We (RAF) are now - or shortly will be - smaller than the Met Police, who manage with 10 total ranks from Plod to Commissioner (other forces have 9).

So why do we have 20-ish......

[NutLoose]

For Army officers of 1-star and above and for RN/RM and RAF officers of 2-star and above, the assumption will be that service will cease following the end of the current tour, without payment of a SCP, if no offer of further employment is made at least 6 months before the end of tour. This is reflected in the flowchart at Annex A.


You can do an awful lot of damage / nest feathering in that period, hence why in the real world you get your things and go then and there....... might still be paid for the period, but they are no longer in a position to do anything..

Rank of command should be based on responsibility and accountability. An airfield of 4,000 people and 100 aircraft seems reasonable for 1* command.

Have the Navy got 100 aircraft???

[airborne_artist]

FAA = 166 (quick add-up in my addled head) airframes according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft#Fleet_Air_Ar m_.28Royal_Navy.29)

[minigundiplomat]

Though set to become 104 as the fleet is rationalised in the next few years - if my maths is correct (same source).

[Pontius Navigator]

Or... they will get a directorship on the board of the many defence Contractors that are selling equipment to the MoD at exorbitant prices, my heart bleeds for them.

Or become 'His Excellency' at some post in some overseas post.

[NutLoose]

So we could stuff all the Navies Aircraft on one Airfield, get shot of the rest, stick a one 1 star Seaman in charge of it and get shot of the rest of them too, plenty of work for them out in the real world, they could take turns on the Birdseye Fish Fingers packaging......:E

This Minister of Defence lark is easy....... :p

[Courtney Mil]

PN, we'll take you as our excellency before a lot of them.

Nutloose, it's a lot easier than many think. It only gets complicated when (a) the Minister gets changed every few months and (b) when politics become the dominant factor. Mostly, it's a matter of learning to understand what's going on, what's required and how to make it happen. All the "minions" around the Minister take care of the detail, as long as the "man" is well briefed, competant and willing.

[racedo]

Not to worry, we may end up with no leadership,

How the hell will you be able to tell the difference ?

[racedo]

But the food is still the same, sh*te

Who do you reckon has better standards on quality.................thats kinda scary when you think of it.

[Lima Juliet]

Why do the Police have so few ranks? Because they don't have an officer's and other rank's career structure. Although fast track is available, all are expected to join as a Constable (graduates on a higher pay band) and do their time of up to 5 years minimum to progress into the rank of Inspector - they have played with direct entry Inspectors but I believe that ACPO aren't very keen.

So really it isn't comparable...

LJ

[November4]

Having served in the RAF and worked with the Police....I know which I prefer.

[airborne_artist]

Worth bearing in mind that police forces have large numbers of non-uniformed civilian staff many of whom perform tasks similar to those in the ranks in the Services. They also have more senior civilian staff in finance, admin etc.

The Met has nearly 14,000 civilian staff and 32,000 full time officers.

[Mach Two]

I just wanted to revisit the NCO Pilot question from earlier. I have to ask, what is the benefit of NCO pilots over junior officer pilots? Just cost-saving (or not, as you say).

Firstly, where do we grow our future flt cdrs, sqn cdrs, det cdrs and the like? Yes I know it's not fashionable to expect our stn cdrs to have experience flying to types they command on their stn any more, but there has to be some type experience in the command chain.

Second, the reduced return of service necessitates more training resources, so, presumably, bigger OCUs.

Third, not good for comradery when half your sqn pilots are drinking in the Officers' Mess, the rest in the Sargeants' Mess.

Slightly simplistic, I know, but in the interests of brevity.

[Could be the last?]

M2,

Point 3 - What planet are you from? This has been happening for years, just depends what fleet you are on.

[Biggus]

Further to point 3:

How much longer do you think there will be separate Messing facilities?

[Mach Two]

Could be the last,

Of course it has, but it still doesn't help with sqn identity or comradeship, which was my point.

I'll check my birth certificate this evening, but obviously planet two-seat.


Biggus,

Good point, well made.


OK, forget my point 3!

M2

[Willard Whyte]

If, for argument's sake, there are 125 'starred' officers in the RAF

I think it was 132 as of Nov '10

Aircraft? About 700.(?)

[teeteringhead]

Why do the Police have so few ranks? Because they don't have an officer's and other rank's career structure. ... police used to have officer entry - a "Sub-Inspector" with one pip only (which is why Inspectors "start" with two).

And in the finest traditions of the Army, he was assigned to a hairy old sergeant to look after him!