Quarter of top Military posts to go

[NutLoose]

Quarter of top military posts to go - UK News - MSN News UK (http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/quarter-of-top-military-posts-to-go-2)

One would have thought that would still be top heavy.

[Geehovah]

I can't imagine many of us will be surprised or worried at that decision. Long overdue really. If we can now stop MOD being a self perpetuating organisation, it will improve things massively. Smart Procurement might finally work!

[dctyke]

'Take two years to carry out'................ stand by for a rash of promotions before pension time!

[Rosevidney1]

Still far too many ROs and civil servants in the establishment.

[Pontius Navigator]

Rose,

Less than 300 RO at the last count.

The CS cut them too and replaced them with Military Support Function. The carrot was a 'free' transfer to CS terms and retention of service to age 65.

The stick was that the posts became open to all CS and the whole CS also got the 65 age limit.

The net result was an increase of non-military people in posts previously manned by ROs many of whom were uniformed and released a uniform for an operational job.

The military did however secure some military posts as FTRS. Like ROs they started earn a second pension and unlike ROs they also had a near Regular rate of pay.

What did you have against ROs?

[Biggus]

I'm sure they'll be missed ..... NOT!

[esscee]

Only a "Quarter", couldn't they make it Half. Using the standard "inverted pyramid" as an example, even a half would still be too many left in post, in the last 25 years or so how has the ratio of *1 and above reduced compared to the overall reduction in manpower? Probably not by enough. Highest rank in the Israeli Air Force is a Brig-Gen, can you imagine the outcry if the highest rank in the RAF was an AVM!

[Old-Duffer]

Perhaps I am being cynical.

However, until I see the new structures, the staff counts and how the chain of command works, I will reserve judging if this is a good idea.

If the MOD posts are merely pushed down to another organisation then nothing will happen to improve effectiveness. Furthermore, unless the structures and the responsibilities are properly balanced, it will mean that the sqn ldrs make the tea that was formerly done by the flt lts (and 25 years ago by the clerical assistant).

Somewhere in all of this there must be a willing acceptance from those who have to make it work that it is the right way to be going.

Task must be matched by Resource. If it's not then overstretch remains and morale stays at rock bottom.

The pyramid is possibly wrong, grade/rank skipping needs to be possible, the concept of: '3 sqn ldrs, work for one wg cdr and three wg cdrs work for one gp capt etc' is not the way to carry on.

Sorry, but still to be convinced.

Old Duffer

[teeteringhead]

can you imagine the outcry if the highest rank in the RAF was an AVM! .. which would probably be about right!

It CANNOT be right to have the same rank structrure for the 100k + RAF I joined to the 32-35k one I find myself with at the moment.

The RAF is or will shortly be about the size of the Met. The Met has a TOTAL of 11 ranks from Constable to Commissioner - and that's 2 more than any other force.

The RAF has a total of 20 - about 10 non-commissioned and warrant, and another 10 commissioned. This in part leads to O-D's correct assumption above, that if we have three sqn ldrs, we need a wg cdr to look after them etc etc.

Turning to the highest rank,the RNZAF have about 3 500 personnel, and a 2* CAS. Perhaps more relevant is the RAAF, with about 17 500, commanded by a SINGLE 3*. How many 3*s do we have for twice that number??

How small do we have to get to lose any ranks??

Discuss.

[Samuel]

The RNZAF has only one AVM and that is the Chief of Air Force, the next step up can only be reached if and when he is appointed to CDS.

[Pontius Navigator]

The promotion racket started with the single list and the Hodgkinson report.

The rationale was that many supplementary list officers were being overlooked and their skills being lost at the 38 point. Similarly the path to a scraper meant that when you were promoted you were immediately posted.

Hodgkinson recommended that there be 300 overborne sqn ldrs. I think at the time this was mainly aircrew. The effect was for us to go from a sqn of 55 aircrew with one wg cdr, one sqn ldr and 53 JO to a sqn of 50 aircrew with one wg cdr, a flt cdr A, flt cdr B, pilot leader, nav leader, AEO leader, and 44 JO.

At a stroke all the senior flt lt jobs were grabbed by the otherwise unemployed sqn ldrs.

The law of unintended consequences then kicks in where there are no professional duties for your flt lt to prove his promotability.

And that was back in the late 60s.

[Ron Cake]

P-N

The single list was introduced in the 1960s but I don't think the first Hodgkinson Posts (HP) were filled until the 1 Jan 72 promotion list. As you say, there were unintended consequences.

The incumbents of these new posts soon cottoned on that this was their sole flying tour in the rank and therefore their main chance to prove themselves in a command appointment. Quite reasonably they expected to undertake flying supervision duties as befits the rank (ie become Sqn Execs). So the Boss, accustomed to working with two just sqn ldrs, (Flt Cdrs) suddenly found himself with four more. (P-N you forgot there was both a N plotter AND a N Radar leader). This was far too great a span of control especially in the days when there was huge emphasis on flying supervision. Consequently, I had a lot of sympathy with those bosses who resisted the supervisory aspirations of the sqn ldrs filling the HP posts. But at the same time I could understand how the HP guys felt.

There were other less important niggles such as, to whom does the HP post report, is the HP leader first reporting officer for the Flt Lts or does he draft for one of the Flt Cdrs and so on.

I imagine it all worked out satisfactorily in the end , but I wonder if the whole HP concept was properly thought through.

[Old-Duffer]

Going back to about 1993/4, there was a study about the rank structure but the only thing that happened was a decision not to use the rank of Marshal of the RAF in peacetime. This may go someway to explain why former CAS's are no longer 'marshalled' on their last day and then placed on 'half pay', not retired.

I had a 'friend' who had been told he was to be made acting Gp Capt at about this time and I had a computer and some sheets of blue crested paper. The combination was too tempting to ignore and so I prepared an elaborate hoax but one which had lots of clues in it eg: the letter I prepared came from Air Cdre Richard Head and was signed off by his common nickname. The gist of the letter was that until the rank business was sorted out, there would be no more promotions and my friend would be paid substitution money instead but his appointment would be promulgated to explicitly state he was 'primus inter pares'. The letter went on to explain a few other things, one of which was that aircrew wg cdrs were exempt, as were doctors and dentists because of their special conditions etc.

I used the telephone number of an office we had once shared but which was now occupied by some other mob and concluded by saying things like I'm sure he appreciated the need for the these difficult decisions and I knew he would accept the decision with his usual aplomb and good humour etc. I then put the letter in a blue crested envelope and typed his name on a single line with no other addressing. This went inside another envelope which was addressed to the unit only. This assured that the letter was removed from the outer envelope in the Registry and then sent to the chap in the internal mail.

Worked a treat!!

Old Duffer

[Pontius Navigator]

RC, I defer to your dating of the single list however I was the radar leader as a mere flt lt as were my two predecessors. My plotter was the BNS leader. You know, we might even have had a copilot leader however. :)

The one with the big slices of pie was the BNS leader with 19 subordinate (and insubordinate) JOs. As everyone had a sqn ldr ldr I can't remember how the sqn ldr flt cdrs managed :)

[Old-Duffer]

One of the problems with getting rid of ranks is that other nations don't like it. Most of our allies (and many of our enemies) have a rank structure similar to our own and they are comfortable with understanding the 'progression', particularly above junior officer level. Any change would unsettle them. It would also be a problem at joint HQs.

It is also interesting that in the 'stan' - as we in the know call it!! - British senior officers frequently wear US rank badges on one side and UK badges on t'other.

If one looks at the British officer corps, it is interesting to see that a significant proportion of senior officers appointments are in multi-national HQs, NATO etc. If we were simply 'feeding' our own services, things would be very simple and the numbers would be significantly different. However, if our very senior officers are to compete and be selected for some of the high powered jobs elsewhere, we have to sustain a 'domestic' rank structure to feed that.

Old Duffer

[Whenurhappy]

In both the Middle East (KSA and Kuwait) and in the 'Stan (or 'Afghan' as the Army call it) I have worn US badges of rank - mainly for the benefit of the British Army who would frequently complain they didn't could identify my rank as they didn't have a bar-code reader...

[Melchett01]

In both the Middle East (KSA and Kuwait) and in the 'Stan (or 'Afghan' as the Army call it) I have worn US badges of rank - mainly for the benefit of the British Army who would frequently complain they didn't could identify my rank as they didn't have a bar-code reader...

And I often played on that one by going by the rank of Captain rather than Flt Lt to make life easier for our allies, but then forgetting to clarify whether I was an Army or Naval captain. The VIP accommodation in Baghdad really was rather pleasant :ok:

[minigundiplomat]

If one looks at the British officer corps, it is interesting to see that a
significant proportion of senior officers appointments are in multi-national
HQs, NATO etc. If we were simply 'feeding' our own services, things would be
very simple and the numbers would be significantly different. However, if our
very senior officers are to compete and be selected for some of the high powered
jobs elsewhere, we have to sustain a 'domestic' rank structure to feed that.

There is an element of bolleaux in the above statement.

1. Most of the one upmanship regarding appointments is between the 3 branches of the UK military, far outweighing the competition from overseas.
2. If someone wants to put a Portuguese General in charge of complex integrated operations, instead of a brit, let them get on with it.
3. These multinational HQ's expend a great deal of time, effort and influence preparing plans - then do what the Americans tell them.

I'd rather we had less influence in a multinational HQ, and a slimmer senior rank structure with less progress handbrakes at the upper echelons.

[Pontius Navigator]

MGD,

NATO hats a big part of UK (MOD) plc. As soon as we lost CinChan we cast around for a replacement. CinC Strike managed to get a NATO hat as CinCUKAir. When they pulled that one he become, IIRC, CinCAFNW or similar. When they pulled that one he bacame ComCAOC9 or some such. It is all to do with dipping your fingers in the NATO money pot and trying to get out more than you put in.

[Easy Street]

Most of the one upmanship regarding appointments is between the 3 branches of the UK military, far outweighing the competition from overseas.

That is bolleaux, particularly in the OF3 / OF4 arena. The US have vast numbers of officers in these ranks performing jobs that would be carried out by OF2 / OF3 respectively by any of the single UK services. This totally skews the rank structure at any organisation the US are involved with, and is why so many UK OOA posts are filled with officers acting 1-up. It's almost become standard practice! As regards the more senior appointments, PN has it right - I should think about 50% of the alliance members are interested in little more than getting their 'fair share' of the command opportunities.

It's easy to scoff at the multinational HQs, but what happens when something like Libya kicks off? Our relative lack of engagement in the NATO command chain caused us difficulties throughout. Obviously this was worked on as the campaign progressed but it would have been much better had we been fully involved in strategic decision-making at the start.

Isn't it a truism of military operations that many of your key assets will sit comparitively idle, waiting for their big opportunity to be used? That applies as much to senior officers as tanks. If the seniors are maxed-out in peacetime, then the advent of war could cause decision-making to grind to a halt. Perhaps that might be a good thing!

[Pontius Navigator]

Our relative lack of engagement in the NATO command chain caused us difficulties throughout.

This was caused with the operational realignment of NATO. The organisation swung from east-facing to south with an increase in NATO HQ across the southern front and a compensating reduction in HQ to the north and west.