Ratio of Air Marshals, Air Commodores and Group Captains in the RAF

[Warmtoast]

What is the current ratio of Air Marshals, Air Commodores and Group Captains in the R.A.F. to units / squadrons etc.?

I was fascinated to see recent figures about the size of the Royal Navy, in particular a statement made in parliament that “There are now 40 admirals and 260 captains in the Royal Navy. However, as a result of defence cuts, there are only 19 active warships.”

So the Royal Navy has 15 times more commanding officers than active warships, with 40 admirals and 260 captains but just 19 ships.

The statistics were revealed by Tory MP James Clappison during a defence debate in the Commons on 17th October, here: House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 2013 (pt 0002) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131017/debtext/131017-0002.htm#13101777000001)

He highlighted the plight of the Navy by revealing there are now 13 captains for every destroyer and frigate, and about two admirals – who each earn more than £100,000 a year – per warship.

He said: ‘In the past the dream of a captain in the Navy might have been to command his own ship.’

‘Today, it might be that dream is simply to set foot on a ship.’

OK that’s the ratio in the Royal Navy. What is the current ratio of Air Marshals, Air Commodores and Group Captains in the R.A.F. to units / squadrons etc.?

[Pontius Navigator]

So the Royal Navy has 15 times more commanding officers than active warships, with 40 admirals and 260 captains but just 19 ships.

Slightly disingenuous as command is usually restricted to just one branch. The Surgeon General et al will have no desire to command a ship.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

So the Royal Navy has 15 times more commanding officers than active warships, with 40 admirals and 260 captains but just 19 ships.

I do not think you need to be of Captain rank to be in command of a warship. - But I stand to be corrected.

Aaron.

[air pig]

As we all know there a far more senior officers at wing commander upwards than wings or squadron. Within the Med Branch and PMRAFNS, numerous wing commanders upwards, consultant surgeons anaesthetists etc are at least wing commander level and above add in Matrons as they used to be add in MiC/DNS and his staff. So the figure is misleading to say the lease, have not even mentioned engineering fighter control Regiment and admin and you have not exactly a cast of thousand but a few hundred.

[air pig]

Aaron:

A Captain of a ship is an appointment, not specifically a rank. A British SSBN is commanded by a Commander but his title is captain.

[Flash2001]

Didn't C Northcote Parkinson notice this some years ago?

After an excellent landing etc...

[Dengue_Dude]

Aaron:

A Captain of a ship is an appointment, not specifically a rank. A British SSBN is commanded by a Commander but his title is captain.

So there are even more Captains skulking around . . .

[NutLoose]

I rather enjoyed this paragraph

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): It is a great pleasure to see you in your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will talk about why the regimental system is so emotive for so many people in this House. I was in the Army, but I really wanted to join the Royal Air Force because my father was an RAF officer. However, he rather ruined it for me when I discovered that I was colour blind. I said, “Dad, that means I can’t fly and I can’t join the RAF.” He said, “That’s right son.” I said, “What about the Navy, dad?” He said, “Starboard and port are red and green. You’ve got to be able to see those.” So I said, “What about the Army?” He said, “Son, the Army will have anyone.”

Especially as Starboard and Port would be green and red :ok:

[muttywhitedog]

The answer is:

Far too many.

[Lima Juliet]

Warmtoast

Knock yourself out with the stats on page 6: http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/personnel/military/annual-personnel-report/2013/1_april_2013.pdf

LJ :ok:

[West Coast]

Toast

Despite the pedants, your point is clear.

[Jimlad1]

For the RN, there are roughly 1400 officer (or slightly under 5% of the Service) at SO1 level and above. Given the responsibilities and demands we place on them, I do not consider this to be an unreasonable level.

Frankly I wonder why there are so many Flight Sgts and Warrant Officers these days - what sort of ratio is there between them and Squadrons? :E

[Warmtoast]

LJ

Thanks for the stats - your post #10 - most illuminating.
So the RAF have:

300 Group Captains
80 Air Commodores
23 AVMs
9 Air Marshals
2 ACMs

Whatever do they all do?

[NutLoose]

They send each other memo's.

Someone's has got to use up the RAF's overstocking of pennants.


..

[dallas]

Frankly I wonder why there are so many Flight Sgts and Warrant Officers these days - what sort of ratio is there between them and Squadrons? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
The principle difference between ranks and rodneys is the former tend to do stuff. :}

[nimbev]

Whatever do they all do? Some years ago I was on a USN staff. We had 12 front line squadrons, 2 main operating bases, 4 deployment bases each with a full squadron deployed, numerous other minor detachment bases, a conversion squadron with 32 aircraft and we were lead by a junior 2 star admiral plus a one star commodore. The equivalent organisation in the RAF had 2 bases, 4 squadrons and a conversion unit (all smaller than their USN equivalents) and was headed up by a three star plus 3 two stars to back him up.

I would like to think the situation has changed, but I doubt it

[FODPlod]

I was fascinated to see recent figures about the size of the Royal Navy, in particular a statement made in parliament that “There are now 40 admirals and 260 captains in the Royal Navy. However, as a result of defence cuts, there are only 19 active warships.”

So the Royal Navy has 15 times more commanding officers than active warships, with 40 admirals and 260 captains but just 19 ships.

The statistics were revealed by Tory MP James Clappison during a defence debate in the Commons on 17th October, here: House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 2013 (pt 0002) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131017/debtext/131017-0002.htm#13101777000001)...

I don't know where Mr Clappison gets his "40 admirals" from. The RN website shows there are 31 serving officers of flag rank (i.e. admirals) in the Naval Service, including several engineers and a surgeon:Senior Naval Staff: Serving & General Officers (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the-Royal-Navy/Organisation/Senior-Naval-Staff)
Perhaps he was including the Chaplain of the Fleet and the six Royal Marines generals?

Or maybe he was thinking of:Admiral of the Fleet HRH the Duke of Edinburgh (Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom)
Admiral of the Fleet HRH the Prince of Wales (Honorary rank)
Admiral of the Fleet HM King Olav of Norway (Honorary rank)
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Edward Beckwith Ashmore, GCB DSC (First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff 1977 - no longer active)
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Benjamin Bathurst (First Sea Lord 1993-95 - no longer active)
Admiral HM King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (Honorary rank)
Rear Admiral Prince Michael of Kent (Honorary rank)
Rear Admiral Sir Frederick Donald Gosling, KCVO (Honorary appointment)
...He highlighted the plight of the Navy by revealing there are now 13 captains for every destroyer and frigate, and about two admirals – who each earn more than £100,000 a year – per warship...

Comparing the number of RN captains and admirals with the number of destroyers and frigates is just as silly as comparing the number of RAF squadron leaders with the number of combat aircraft squadrons. Apart from 19 DD/FF, the RN also runs, mans and maintains LPHs, LPDs, SSBNs, SSNs, offshore and inshore patrol vessels, fishery protection vessels, survey vessels, an ice patrol ship, MCMVs, naval air squadrons, shore establishments, naval bases, EOD units, Forward Support Units, etc., etc. Even the Royal Marines and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary come under the Fleet Commander's purview. As in the other services, senior officers also serve in national, NATO, EU and other HQs as well as in foreign exchange posts and embassies abroad.

There have already been swingeing reductions to 'the top brass' over the past few years (e.g. the RN now has only a single 4* (admiral) and two 3*s (vice-admirals) at the top) and I expect there are many more to come. However, let's get things in perspective. Essentially, rank now recognises the relative scales of pay, privileges and status needed to retain someone's services. For example, the RN's 'all of one company' ethos puts its doctors and dentists in uniform and gives them stripes appropriate to their relative professional status and seniority. Exceptionally, chaplains in the RN are not given stripes but there are understandable reasons for this and they are compensated in other ways.

I have used this analogy before but it's worth repeating. We can compare the Armed Forces with another public organisation to see the irrelevance of senior military rank to absolute pay, power and status: AIM OF ORGANISATION

UK ARMED FORCES: To defend the United Kingdom, and Overseas Territories, its people and interests and to act as a force for good by strengthening international peace and security.

BBC: To educate, inform and entertain.

NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES (2013 FIGURES)

UK ARMED FORCES: c.170,000 uniformed personnel (excluding reserves and civil servants)

BBC: c.23,000 staff

SIZE OF ANNUAL BUDGET

UK ARMED FORCES: c.£42bn

BBC: c.£5bn

SALARY OF HEAD OF ORGANISATION

UK ARMED FORCES: Gen Sir Nick Houghton, Chief of Defence Staff - £240k (link (http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm85/8569/8569.pdf))

BBC: Tony Hall, Director-General - £450k (down from £671k for Mark Thompson) (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18702085))

OTHER STAFF WITH SALARIES OVER £200K

UK ARMED FORCES (link (http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm85/8569/8569.pdf))

None. Maximum salary is currently £187k for a 4* RN Admiral/RM General in the Naval Service (1 in toto), normal General in the Army (4 in toto) or Air Chief Marshal in the RAF (2 in toto).

BBC (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/))

Peter Salmon, Director, BBC North (£375k)
Helen Boarden, Director, Radio (£340k)
Tim Davie, CEO, BBC Worldwide & Director, Global (£335k)
Zarin Patel, Former Chief Financial Officer (£322k)
Lucy Adams, Director HR (£320k)
Bal Samra, Commercial Director (£315k)
Dominic Coles, Director of Operations (£300k)
James Purnell, Director, Strategy & Digital (£295k)
Ralph Rivera, Director, Future Media (£295k)
John Linwood, Chief Technology Officer (£280k)
Roger Mosey, Editorial Director (£270k)
Danny Cohen, Director, Television (£262k)
Daniel Danker, Former General Manager, Products & On Demand (£246k)
John Yorke, Controller of Drama Production and New Talent (£240k)
Ben Stephenson, Controller, Drama Commissioning (£240k)
Peter Horrocks, Director, Global News (£233k)
Janice Hadlow, Controller, BBC Two and Interim Controller, BBC Four (£227k)
Emma Swain, Head of Knowledge Commissioning (£220k)
Roger Wright, Controller, Radio 3 and Director, BBC Proms (£220k)
Beverley Tew, Group Finance Director (£214k)
Bob Shennan, Controller, Radio 2, 6 Music and Asian Network (£213k)
Mark Freeland, Head of Comedy (£212k)
Zai Bennett, Controller, BBC Three (£212k)
Anne Morrison, Training Academy Director (£210k)
Philip Almond, Director, Marketing (£210k)
Nick Betts, Controller of Business, Drama, Films and Acquisitions, Television (£210k)
Nicolas Brown, Director, Drama Productions, Vision (£210k)
Lisa Opie, Controller of Business, Knowledge and Daytime (£208k)
Shane Allen, Controller, Comedy Commissioning, Television (£207k)
Andy Griffee, Project Director, W1 (£207k)
Kate Harwood, Head of Drama, England (£205k)
Sarah Jones, Group General Counsel, Operations (£205k)
Graham Ellis, Controller Production and Deputy Director, Radio (£202k)
Mark Linsey, Controller, Entertainment Commissioning (£202k)
Several more BBC executives earn more than the heads of the RN, Army and RAF. Perhaps CNS, CGS and CAS are in the wrong game? They could be making much more money as the BBC's Head of Comedy.

[dallas]

Comedy is a serious business, FODPlod. :)

You otherwise make a very good point, imo.

[Just This Once...]

It is an excellent post.

[Onceapilot]

Just reinforces my opinion that the armed services have been let down by a lack of savvy at the top. The new pension terms will be a disaster unless someone gets a grip of the politicians-and quick!:uhoh:

OAP

[OldnDaft]

When I left Innsworth there were over 160 officers, of Wg Cdr rank and above, in unestablished posts. That is "employed" in working groups, studies and other such nonsense. There are still a significant number in MTM posts doing the same thing, not to mention gardening leave. It is ridiculous and must stop.

[Biggus]

No doubt in the future, as costs of equipment rise, and the RAF is left with only one Squadron of planes, the RN one warship and the Army one battalion of men, we will still have 30+ Air Marshals, Admirals and General at MOD/NATO HQs/the Pentagon/etc.......














But should we?

[Roland Pulfrew]

300 Group Captains
80 Air Commodores
23 AVMs
9 Air Marshals
2 ACMs

Whatever do they all do?

That is a tongue in cheek question, right? Because if you meant it may I suggest the intranet version of the RAF List? That will tell you what they do. As an example: only one of the ACMs is directly involved in the running of the RAF - CAS. The other one is in (tri-service) post of VCDS.

Of the AMs: only 2 are directly involved in the running of the RAF: DCom Ops and AMP. Of the others: 2 are in (tri-service) posts in NATO, one is the (tri-service) Surgeon General; one is the (tri-service) "chief engineer-air", one is the (tri-service) head of the MAA, one is in the (tri-service) head of capability post and the final one has recently retired.

Of the AVMs..... well you get my drift.

Do you want influence as an Air Force or do we hand all of these posts over to the RN and Army? I know what I would prefer.

[FODPlod]

When I left Innsworth there were over 160 officers, of Wg Cdr rank and above, in unestablished posts. That is "employed" in working groups, studies and other such nonsense. There are still a significant number in MTM posts doing the same thing, not to mention gardening leave. It is ridiculous and must stop.

I don't know enough to judge the validity of your point but according to the reference (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/personnel/military/annual-personnel-report/2013/1_april_2013.pdf) provided by LJ in post #10, the total number of OF-4s (Wg Cdrs) and above constitutes less than 4% of total RAF personnel.

The 160 officers you cite represent around 0.4% of total RAF personnel. In the RN, such officers in temporary posts would have been considered part of the appointer's (poster's) 'margin' to back-fill established billets vacated by people deployed at short notice, on course, promoted out of job, falling ill, volretting, etc., bearing in mind that not all are interchangeable owing to their particular rank, specialisation, experience, medcat, etc.

[Roland Pulfrew]

When I left Innsworth there were over 160 officers, of Wg Cdr rank and above, in unestablished posts. That is "employed" in working groups, studies and other such nonsense.

Of course, quite a few of them are filling unestablished out-of-area posts as well and quite a few more are dossing around as students on staff college!:hmm:

[Just This Once...]

I think the relevance expired with the 'when I left Innsworth….'. In the post-SDSR world we have far more gaps than people and the forecast is for things to get worse, not better. Manning is estimating that the aircrew SO1 / SO2 gap is going to peak at about 400 short in a few years time.

[Biggus]

...."a few years time".

Ah, you mean just after 2015, and the next SDSR, which, no doubt in the post Afghanistan era, will probably reduce the RAF further, thus solving your problem - simples!

[Just This Once...]

Probably so!

[Warmtoast]

FODPlod
I don't know where Mr Clappison gets his "40 admirals" from. The RN website shows there are 31 serving officers of flag rank (i.e. admirals) in the Naval Service, including several engineers and a surgeon

Probably from the MOD's "UK Armed Forces Annual Personnel Report" dated 1st April 2013, published 23 May 2013 available here:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/personnel/military/annual-personnel-report/2013/1_april_2013.pdf

This lists in "Table 1 - UK Regular Forces Rank Structure at 1 April 2013" on page six, that the Royal Navy has 41 Admirals.

30 Rear Admirals
9 Vice Admirals
2 Admirals

[Warmtoast]

OK

Slightly tongue in cheek but according to a parliamentary reply:
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 31 Jan 2012 (pt 0002) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120131/text/120131w0002.htm#120131143001971)

As at 1st January 2012 the RAF had 909 aircraft, including 65 Vigilant T1's and 82 Viking T1's at the Volunteer Gliding Schools (VGS). Deduct the VGS aircraft and one is left with 762 aircraft.

So with 300 Group Captains in the system they could each be in command of 2½ aircraft each.

What a difference from my days in the service when a Group Captain commanded a station, a Wing Commander was responsible for three squadrons and a squadron was led by a Squadron Leader.

[Hangarshuffle]

There's some good posts on here especially warmtoasts and FODplods, but the Forces Senior Officers are an easy target... When you look at the facts - the public know we have small numbers of actual war material these days i.e. ships and planes - and they just don't get it at all. They just think its jobs for the old boys (may be it is)? Looks like it, at times.

Its proper fit trained fighting men and women the forces need when the chips are down y'know. (We all know that).

If anyone here works in a civvy street commercially focused organisation (like er, me) and (yes, incredibly!) I work for a very foreign very successful massive company) I never get over how well they manage without top brass in their faces) compared to the services. They, as managers are allowed to just get on with it.
I have one country manager (sometimes see him, usually don't) a few heads of departments like production, maintenance, (we all eat in the same diner) and not much more.....we seem to do all right. p.s. plenty of good workers here like me, mind;).

[dctyke]

I think the real test is the 'ratio' of ranks in relation to the size of the RAF over the years. I somehow think I know what the trend would be over the last decade or three.

[FODPlod]

...http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/...april_2013.pdf

This lists in "Table 1 - UK Regular Forces Rank Structure at 1 April 2013" on page six, that the Royal Navy has 41 Admirals.

30 Rear Admirals
9 Vice Admirals
2 Admirals

But it doesn't. The list shows that the Naval Service (i.e. the Royal Navy & the Royal Marines) is structured for:

30 OF-7s
9 OF-8s
2 OF-9s

As far as I can ascertain from the RN website (link (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the-Royal-Navy/Organisation/Senior-Naval-Staff)), the actual numbers are:

22 Rear Admirals, 1 Surgeon Rear Admiral, 1 Chaplain of the Fleet and 4 RM Major Generals at OF-7 level (total 28)
7 Vice Admirals and 2 RM Lieutenant Generals at OF-8 level (total 9)
1 Admiral at OF-9 level (down from 2)

[Rosevidney1]

We are quibbling about trivia here. The obvious fact that we have far too many senior officers is the one that needs to be sorted. That they are well remunerated is not in dispute. Comparing military salaries with the profligate BBC is a red herring. Someone is going to have to make a decision on what we need for a rank structure that fits todays military. Are there too many officers ranks? Are there sufficient ORs ranks?

[Just This Once...]

Why is it an obvious fact?

[Jimlad1]

I suspect the 30 / 20 disparity is a rounding error - DASA tend to round up for various reasons, so its more likely 21 not 30.

As for suggesting that 31 people in total occupying the top 3 ranks of the Naval Service is too many - that is 0.1% of the entire service.

A question I have asked, without any good response is - how many should there be?

[Easy Street]

I think the real test is the 'ratio' of ranks in relation to the size of the RAF over the years. I somehow think I know what the trend would be over the last decade or three.
Someone is going to have to make a decision on what we need for a rank structure that fits todays military. Are there too many officers ranks? Are there sufficient ORs ranks?

There's no need to make inferences: the ratio of officers:airmen has increased over the years. The reason is straightforward: contractorisation. In the air force of old, everything from depot-level maintenance to changing lightbulbs in offices to cleaning the toilets in the messes would have been done by non-commissioned serving personnel. Today all of those things, and many many more, are done by civilians under contract. So it's no surprise that the proportion of officers has increased; while some officer functions have been civilianised (much of the engineering and logistics support world, and station posts like OC Accounts), in general the scope for civilianisation of officer posts is somewhat less than amongst the trades.

[Finningley Boy]

Ah, you mean just after 2015, and the next SDSR, which, no doubt in the post Afghanistan era, will probably reduce the RAF further, thus solving your problem - simples!

I can't imagine what kind of an air force we'd have with further cuts. Doubtless any more will fall on the Tornado/Typhoon element. Following SDSR Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell, I believe it was, feared that the R.A.F. would by 2020 field only 6 such operational squadrons. The way General N Houghton is carrying on, reading between the lines, and with the mind set of today's political establishment, held across the board, I think its possible we'll be down to just 4 or 5 squadrons of Typhoons and no more before the first F35B arrives to form an additional squadron or even replacement for one of the remaining Typhoon squadrons. I'm not convinced all of this is due to shifting priorities in defence terms, just a continuing exercise in continually boiling down the overall list of assets and personnel and each time disaster doesn't strike will herald a further reduction. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up?

FB

[lederhosen]

The rather obvious point being missed is that as organisations become slimmer, and increasingly employ technology rather than manpower to get the job done, they still need managing.

The activities of today's senior management are not limited to man management but involve many other tasks unknown in victorian times or even the sixties. To assess properly the number of senior officers required you have to identify the total workload.

It goes without saying that the forces like many other governmental organisations can be made considerably more efficent. But reducing the problem to Jesus principle / roman legion formulas is misunderstanding the problem.

(Jesus principle: 1 manager to twelve workers as a lot of state organisations were structured, for those not schooled in organisational management.)

[Parson]

Considering the size that the military once was, there are too many commissioned ranks for the current manpower. At least 2 should be removed.

And post 2018, the clamour for one combinded service will grow and grow.........

[Red Line Entry]

Parson,

Why? The RAAF is 17,000 strong and has the same rank structure as us (albeit they only have a 4 star when he is also Chief of the Defence Force).

It's the number of levels of authority that you need to do your business that's important, not size per se. In other words, each promotion should give you a greater level of responsibility. Looking at our current structure, it pretty much does. Indeed, the last change we had was to get rid of the JT rank so we've ended up with the daft situation of now having SACs and SAC(Technicians), the latter with a circle around their 3-bladed props rather than having JTs with a 4-bladed prop!!

[Roland Pulfrew]

We are quibbling about trivia here. The obvious fact that we have far too many senior officers is the one that needs to be sorted.

And yet again we come back to the oft stated but never substantiated claim that we have too many senior officers in the UK Armed Forces, but without any realistic proposal of which ones you can get rid of. So come on then all the naysayers - which senior officer posts would you get rid of and why?

Oh and what do you do with all the work that they currently do?

There is a list of the 9 Air Marshals in post #23. I will leave you to work out where the 23 AVM slots are.

[Parson]

RLE - the current rank structure dates from the when the air force was several times the size it is today. You simply don't need the number of current ranks to manage a much reduced service.

[teeteringhead]

Come to that the RNZAF has fewer than 3 500 people (half the size of Brize?) and still has a 2-Star CAS (or CAF as they call him).

But to return to a hobby horse of mine, it's the number of different ranks we still have (and that's a Joint Service "we") that's the problem IMHO.

At the risk of emulating WEBFan, I quote something pertinent I posted on another thread a while ago:

Facts:

1. I joined an RAF of about 150 000 personnel - with a 4-Star CAS. I now serve with a 35 000-ish RAF - with a 4-Star CAS.

2. 35 000 in uniform about equates to the Met Police - who have 11 ranks in total from Constable to Comissioner (and that's 2 more ranks than most forces).

3. From AC to ACM, the RAF has about 19 or 20 ranks.

Discuss.

[Roland Pulfrew]

OK Teeters, I will add another set of questions:

What ranks do you propose getting rid of and why? What do you actually gain by getting rid of a rank (look what's happened to the JT & SAC(T))? What happens to all the personnel in the disestablished rank? Are they promoted to the next rank or demoted to the lower rank? What happens to their pay and responsibilities?

My view: the rank system in the UK military isn't broken, so why try and fix it? It is similar to that of (pretty much) all other militaries, so there has to be question: if they are all happy, why shouldn't we be? Comparing us with a police force is entirely erroneous, just as comparing us with Tescos is erroneous. You need to compare air forces with air forces and armies with armies. We regularly get compared to the Israeli Air Force (erroneously, but with reason) and they have the same number of ranks as us bar OR1 and OF9 and OF10 (and we don't really have any OF10s any more).

[Parson]

It may not be broken but it is very expensive. Get rid of a few brass hats and their attendant perks/pensions and the cuts in equipment and manning may not have to be so severe.

[jayc530]

The rank structure per se works, its the numbers at each position that needs to be reduced. Far too many OC ABC and Gp Capt T&A.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ah so more unsubstantiated opinion: getting rid of some "brass hats" (you might want to check how much a "brass hat" earns to see it would be an irrelevance to cuts in equipment and manning) and OC ABC and Gp Capt T&A without actually being able to identify what posts you would cut! You're going to have to do better than that!!

[HAS59]

I think the leadership structure is fine it works well whatever size force we have. The rank system doesn't need cutting, it works, leave it alone. It's all too easy to break something - quite another to fix it again when you realise the mistake.
You could argue that the system needs more aircraft, squadrons, airfields etc to balance the ratio.
Leave the structure in place so that we can grow into it again.

[Jimlad1]

"It may not be broken but it is very expensive. Get rid of a few brass hats and their attendant perks/pensions and the cuts in equipment and manning may not have to be so severe."

Okay - so lets fire 10 Air Vice Marshals shall we. We've just saved about £1.2 million per year. There are no drivers as such anymore (its pretty much a pool and if you're lucky you may get a car). Most of the houses have gone, and those that are left are used heavily for official functions.
There is a tiny number of staff with 'retinues' who essentially do the catering for official functions and help ensure that the senior has time to do his job. They still work out far more cheaply than getting hired help in every time an official function is held.

In return for a very small salary relative to responsibility, we expect these people to be on call 7 days per week. Most 2*s and above that I've worked with have diaries which start very early, and finish very late. They are usually busy people with a lot of responsibility.

Their 'perks' seem to be limited to a nice uniform, an occasional driver if the business case can be made and in a tiny number of jobs some form of in house catering support.

Take all this away and you dont save more than £2m per year - or less than the cost of an average BBC star...

[Vortex_Generator]

Thread drift alert.

It's certainly broken at some levels. How can a FS and a CT both be OR7? Don't get me started on the inter-service bit of this. It would not be tolerated at any OF level!

[Just This Once...]

It is tolerated at OF level.

[teeteringhead]

I'll rise to Roland's bait.

The rank system, both OR and OF, is - or appears to be - based on the Army and especially the Infantry (probably other teeth arms also). It seems to me that each OF rank has (had?) a discrete role.

Looking at the more senior OF ranks, Majs commanded companies, half Colonels battalions, Brigs ... er ... Brigades, Maj Gens Divisions, Lt Gens Corps and Generals Armies.

So far so good. Those still reading will note I've omitted full Cols; but until recently so could the Army with "brevet" promotions from Lt Col to one-Star. (As an aside, to suit their needs, the RN - again until recently - could miss out one star). But of course - see my penultimate para below -the RAF had to use ALL the ranks!!

One of the "unintended consequences" of this is on pay: the big rises are at Lt Col and Brig, which are important command milestones - in the Army. Both the RAF and RN have "big commands" at Capt/Gp Capt, but not much of a pay rise - comparatively speaking.

So how would I change it? I speak almost entirely from an RAF flying background, so I'll talk about aviation units. I'm sure - mutatis mutandis - it would work elsewhere.

ORs first. IMHO you need:

1. A u/t or recruit rank.
2. A "doer" - whether that's with a spanner or a pen (metaphorically).
3. A junior supervisor.
4. A senior supervisor.
5. A junior (mostly man-) manager.
6. A senior manager.
7. An overall "God" - clearly a Warrant Officer ;);)

So that's 7 ranks (at most). Given the rule of thumb (or span) with each "looking after" up to 5 of the next lower rank/grade - that easily gives a WO thousands of troops! (note the "up to")

Now the OFs.

1. U/t.
2. A basic "doer". (Sqn Shag)
3. Advanced "doer"/junior supervisor. (Auth?)
4. Senior supervisor/manager (Flt Cdr/Sqn Cdr?)
5. More senior supervisor/manager but (crucially) no longer necessarily the Subject Matter Expert. (Staish?)
6. Type or Role Commander.
7. Force Commander.
8. Top Bloke (Blokess?) and political interface.

So that gives us about 15 instead of the present 19 or 20. And - as the Army (sort of) demonstrate, the operationally based rank structure gives a (fairly) suitable structure for the staff support.

One other key move that we (RAF) seem particularly bad at is missing out a rank level in any particular wiring diagram. We seem incapable of having a bunch of (say) sqn ldrs working for a gp capt without chucking in a couple of Wingcos.

So there we are - back of a fag packet (well - Cuban cigars actually) in less than half-an-hour; my starter for 10. :ok:

[as an aside, and for some good Trivia, I commend the Wiki entry on RAF ranks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_officer_ranks). How about an AVM as a "3rd Ardian"!! :ok:]

[Pontius Navigator]

Doing the fag packet bit, the Police have two ranks below Inspector ignoring shades such as probationer.

Following the slimming analogy the air force would abolish all enlisted ranks except AC and Sgt - save 5 ranks.

Then an inspector = flt lt therefore abolish PO/FO.
CI=Sqn Ldr
Sup=Wg Cdr
CS=Gp Capt
AC=AC
DC=AVM
CC=AM
On this model you can see the bulk of the extra RAF ranks are at the bottom not the top.

Now most functional aircrew are sgt to flt ie 6 ranks. Abolish FS, MACR, PO and FO. Let's face it, on the sqns it is how you perform and not what you are paid that counts.

For the ranks below sgt, go to one rank and on the same principle, you know who to entrust and who needs supervision. Simples.

Or is it?:bored:

[Whenurhappy]

It may not be broken but it is very expensive. Get rid of a few brass hats and their attendant perks/pensions and the cuts in equipment and manning may not have to be so severe.

Jimlad has beaten me to it. Precisely what perks do senior officers get these days? First Class rail travel? no. Business Class flights? no. A Batman? no. Competative salaries? probably not. Company car? no - and never have had. Good final salary pension scheme? Not for much longer - but the same scheme as all other regular SP. Free housing? no. Private health care scheme? no. Deprive those who have done 30 or so years their pension? Cue Employment tribunals and Judicial Reviews.

Precisely how would the RAF's cause be helped by reducing a slack handful of Air ranks?

I could go on...but most of you who are still serving know that cuts have be taken across the board. Has anyone tried to get hold of desk in MB? Sorry, that post is now gapped or rusticated to Wales/Bristol/RAF Little Snoring on the Wold/out-sourced.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Teeters

Thanks for the reply and I hope you enjoyed the cigars, but I still question what you actually gain by getting rid of those 3 or 4 ranks: what does it gain (apart from confusing all of our allies)?

Pontious

Then an inspector = flt lt therefore abolish PO/FO.


Whilst I still question the need to compare the military with a police force (we have massively different roles and responsibilities), I also question the logic behind making everyone a flt lt on graduation. Whilst it might work for the aircrew world (although I doubt it), it is unlikely to work across all branches and all 3 services. At present the Plt Off or 2nd Lt rank identifies someone as the most junior officer; people will instantly assume that they are not yet fully swept up in their branch/role, be that as a sqn shag operator, OC PSF or a platoon commander. They are identified as someone who is likely to need guidance/advice/mentoring etc. I am sure we all remember abos that were green shield flt lts on graduation from IOT - they were often approached for advice well beyond their knowledge/capabilities.

A few years ago (quite a few years ago now) there was a plan to get rid of the Plt Off rank. It was dumped as an irrelevance. I still cannot see what the benefits are of getting rid/altering our rank structure; it works. It isn't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

[BEagle]

I am sure we all remember abos that were green shield flt lts on graduation from IOT - they were often approached for advice well beyond their knowledge/capabilities.

On 16GE, one GD chap arrived as a Flt Lt with so much back-dated seniority that even before he'd started IOT, he actually outranked his Flt Cdr who was an ex-Henlow Admin(Sec) officer..... But they both saw the absurdity of the situation and had a laugh about it.

[Pontius Navigator]

green shield flt lts on graduation from IOT - they were often approached for advice well beyond their knowledge/capabilities.

Oh quite, I was merely joking and suggesting how a 'police' structure could be implemented.

Besides the GSFL, there was that other beast, AC Acting Cpl (unpaid).

You can differentiate the real thing from the uniform - stores fresh, still with nap and unlaundered from the well worn, shiney suited, and baggy kneed. :)

With aircrew, similar difference with stores creases and lack of badges.

[Parson]

As anyone in business will tell you, the savings in staff costs are alot more than just not having to pay salaries. The original post relates to numbers of senior officers in the forces and the unavoidable fact is that there are too many. And there comes a point where numbers in each rank are such that it makes sense to lose a few of those ranks.

And Little Snoring is alive and well - current squadron strength is 1 x C172 (I believe):)

[Wander00]

Glad to hear Little Snoring thrives - used to live in the village and had my only ever Tiger Moth flight from there organised by Peter Charles (who used to crop spray from there) and piloted by Henry Labouchere. Thanks guys.

[Pontius Navigator]

numbers of senior officers in the forces and the unavoidable fact is that there are too many.

Is it unavoidable?

Is it a fact?

What is a fact is that establishments everywhere are squeezed and under manning against establishment is the norm.

If your VSO has no useful function it is highly unlikely that they would be allowed to remain unproductive, nor would they want to.

As already mentioned, many Servicemen serve in treaty posts outwith the national forces but appear in the total numbers. The decision to place personnel in such treaty posts is as much political as military.

[Parson]

PN, Ok fair point. I can't prove it as a fact, just my opinion.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Parson

I can't prove it as a fact, just my opinion.

Perhaps you might try to substantiate your opinion. The random statement of your opinion doesn't help I'm afraid. It is my opinion that we have cut back too far, across a lot of ranks. You only have to look at how many posts are gapped, including on front-line squadrons, to realise that the cutbacks have gone too far. Unfortunately the volume of work does not really deminish if you cut a squadron or two from a fleet of 5 or 6 squadrons. The same management issues still exist for 1 sqn or 6 sqns. Savings only come when you get rid of an entire fleet/capability.

[Pontius Navigator]

RP, quite. Not that long ago my command tree ran down to flt lt and then direct to AVM. The lowest branch was levelled slightly when they made him up to acting sqn ldr. All the other ranks were posted, PVRd, gapped, and detached.

Top heavy? Certainly, the trunk was so thin that it couldn't support the fairy at the top of the tree :)

[4ROCK]

Just to spark up the discussion a bit and to 'test the water' amongst you seasoned ppruners how about looking at it another way.........

.....haven't we 'shrunk' enough to having a common command chain for all 3 services? Why for instance do we need 3 medical services complete with a whole chain of VSO's? An injured serviceman is not going to care what colour of uniform the medics are wearing or which band the stretcher bearer plays for in his day job!

Isn't it about time we stopped faffing around and going for a UK Defence Force that enabled a complete clear out of all the VSO's who are in non-jobs in all of our services?

It may be hard to swallow for a lot of people (particularly current VSO's) but surely someone has got to do a bit of joined up thinking on this one?!

[MPN11]

Interesting concept, 4rock ... I could certainly envisage a common "Defence Medical Service" or "Defence <insert religion here> Pastoral Care" operation. However, that 'expansion by combination' could, I suspect, result in the Command tree growing extra branches to support the hanging fruit.

[alfred_the_great]

Why for instance do we need 3 medical services complete with a whole chain of VSO's? An injured serviceman is not going to care what colour of uniform the medics are wearing or which band the stretcher bearer plays for in his day job!

You could call it a Defence Medical Service, and use all 3 Services in each others healthcare centres, but ask each Service to lead on a certain medicine type (Diving/Nuclear Medicine, CBRN and Aviation perhaps?).

You could also pool the requirement for consultants across all 3 Services, with slight weighting for specific tasks, but with all 3 ready to support each others specialist tasks.

The DMS could be commanded by a single 3* chosen from across the Services, with a Service lead at the 2* level.

How does that sound as an idea?

[4ROCK]

I'm chuffed that (currently!) my 'root and branch' suggestion of rationalisation has a few supporters - although I was hoping we could extend the concept to encompass ALL elements of our services under one 'unified' command structure. Yes there will be much crying over the loss of tradition, our military heritage etc etc, - but I would envisage the most tricky bit would be integrating the 3 services aviation 'departments'! Or would it be that difficult in reality??

I only used the medical services as a prime example of a logical way forward for a (seemingly) crazy situation that we currently have. The only time I ever needed some emergency surgery whilst on operations (over 30 years ago) I was treated extremely proficiently by some navy types - they didn't seem to mind I wore a different shade of blue and their handiwork has thankfully stood the test of time!

[Door Slider]

Defence Medical Service already exists:

The Defence Medical Services (DMS) includes the Headquarters Surgeon General (HQSG), Joint Medical Command (JMC), Defence Dental Services (DDS) and the three single service medical organisations. It is headed by the Surgeon General (SG).

Medical, dental and related support services are provided to armed forces personnel by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the NHS, charities and welfare organisations.


I addition the newly formed Joint Forces Command (JFC) stood up recently:

We work toward making military operations successful by making sure joint capabilities - like medical services, training and education, intelligence, and cyber-operations - are efficiently managed and supported. We also communicate actual experience in operational theatres so that it can be reflected in top-level decision making.

[alfred_the_great]

Door Slider - I believe I may have missed the sarcasm smiley.....

[Parson]

R Pulfrew - if you bothered to read all my posts, I have substantiated my opinion

[dctyke]

Were any LEAN exercises undertook at HQSTC?

[Willard Whyte]

The USMC is about the same size as all three of our services combined. They have boats 'n planes 'n tanks, just like us. Not many SSBNs it's true, but otherwise quite similar.

There were 198,427 Marines as of March 31, 2012.



Marine Corps Active Duty Personnel by Rank/Grade

GENERAL ---------- 4
LtGen ------------ 19
MajGen----------- 32
BGen------------- 30
COLONEL -------- 696
LT COL---------- 1,931
MAJ-------------- 3,932
Capt------------- 6,708
1stLt------------- 3,791
2ndLt------------ 2,916
Chief Warrant Officer 5-------- 103
Chief Warrant Officer 4-------- 300
Chief Warrant Officer 2-------- 527
Chief Warrant Officer 3-------- 819
Warrant Officer 1-------- 445

TOTAL OFFICER-------- 22,253


MGySgt / SgtMaj / SgtMajMarCor-------- 1,601
MSgt / 1stSgt-------- 4,013
GySgt---------- 9,164
SSgt---------- 16,987
Sgt----------- 30,263
Cpl----------- 37,979
LCpl---------- 47,756
PFC---------- 20,726
Pvt---------- 7,685

TOTAL ENLISTED------ 176,174

GRAND TOTAL ------198,427



You'll have to do your own 'rank translation', I can't be bothered, and I have no idea of British numbers. 'Tis not meant for opinion, merely comparison.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Parson

if you bothered to read all my posts, I have substantiated my opinion

Thanks, I can read, I have read your opinion Parson: I can't prove it as a fact, just my opinion. . If, however you had bothered to read my posts, you would see I am more interested in why you make your assertions, not what your (unsubstantiated) opinion is!:rolleyes:

[Parson]

RP,

The question was about numbers of ranks. With armed forces a fraction the size of the post war years, I can't see how the number of current ranks can be justified.

Taking up your post re nos. of squadrons: 1 x squadron = A squadron (1 x squadron commander); 6 x squadrons = a station or group (6 x squadron commanders & 1 x staish or other).

[FODPlod]

The USMC is about the same size as all three of our services combined. They have boats 'n planes 'n tanks, just like us. Not many SSBNs it's true, but otherwise quite similar...

Not really. It doesn't have any SSNs either, let alone aircraft carriers, LPHs, LPDs, destroyers, frigates, survey vessels, MCMVs, fleet support vessels, etc. It relies on the US Navy, including its Military Sealift Command, for such platforms (see Marines Worry about Future Shortage of Navy Ships (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=386)) and I'm sure there is a similar dependency on the other services. It certainly relies on the USAF's Air Mobility Command for much of its airlift.

I suspect the other services occupy a proportionally greater number of the higher echelon national (e.g. NSA and other government agencies) and international appointments (e.g. NATO, foreign exchange posts, diplomatic missions, etc.) too.

[Willard Whyte]

:rolleyes:

[Fortissimo]

dctyke,

Yes, there were several LEAN exercises conducted at HQSTC. It wasn't possible to take a 30% manpower cut without having some process to find out what work was contributing to the desired result and what wasn't. As with all organisations pre-LEAN - including those out there in the big wide world - about 25% of the overall effort was being spent on activities subsequently categorised as 'waste'. I would like to think a similar exercise was conducted when the Air Staff (and CAS) was rusticated from MB but I wasn't there. Perhaps someone who was involved can enlighten us?

[Red Line Entry]

So despite all the opinions that there are plenty of VSO posts in the RAF that should be deleted, no-one has yet named and justified a single post that could be removed, let alone the dozens that would be needed to make any appreciable difference to the Defence budget.

[Pontius Navigator]

Fortissimo, we had a leaning period in the CS. Routine forms such as attendance had been raised weekly and submitted monthly, then filed and retained for 3 years. It was determined that nothing was actually done with them and they were binned. I am sure something like that has crept back in.

On T&S we were allowed to book through the booking service, subsist, and then submit claims on line, no countersignature. Oversight was simply a matter of calling down the figures and seeing that they were broadly in line one person to the next and subject to random audit. Great.

Then the boss decided we needed prior approval - a new form was generated and submitted. When approved, even for meetings at his own HQ, we would then submit the claim and send a printed copy to HQ. Not great.

No bureaucracy can exist with out bureaucracy.

[Blacksheep]

I feel sorry for those 7,685 Marine Privates. They have 190,742 superiors bossing them about. No wonder they're called "Grunts". ;)

[Roland Pulfrew]

RLE

Thank you. :ok:

4ROCK

The debate over three single forces or a "purple" force has been debated on here many times. IIRC the ultimate answer was: it's been tried (in Canada), it failed, and they have gone back to 3 single services.

The one flaw in the "one single force" proposition is apart from a couple of posts at the very top and the odd "command" warrant officer - what do you actually save (assuming that there are no losses in capability when you amalgamate)? Those doing the work in lt. blue, dark blue and green will still be needed to do their jobs whether they wear a "purple" uniform or not. The command structures will still be required, unless you are suggesting that all those 1, 2 & 3 stars in each service currently do so little work that some of them can take on the portfolio of another 1, 2 or 3* as well as their own!!

As to:

complete clear out of all the VSO's who are in non-jobs in all of our services?

Perhaps you could identify which VSOs are in "non-jobs" right now? Lots of people say we have too many senior officers without actually being able to say which ones are so under employed that their post can go and what little work they (apparently) do can be shared around the others.

Parson


Taking up your post re nos. of squadrons: 1 x squadron = A squadron (1 x squadron commander); 6 x squadrons = a station or group (6 x squadron commanders & 1 x staish or other).

My error, I was of course talking about all of the group, command and DE&S etc staff that are still required whether it is one squadron or 6. You still require that level of oversight, from SQEP, to meet the ever expanding regulation we face, regardless of the number of squadrons - and that burden is only getting worse.

[dervish]

Perhaps you could identify which VSOs are in "non-jobs" right now?

Quite right Roland. But for the very reason you mentioned we are going to become more top heavy as posts that are not related to numbers beneath them are retained, but the overall numbers reduce drastically. The sensationalists will continue trotting out the "more Admirals than ships" line. I want the VSOs we have to be competent, strong leaders. I'm afraid that hasn't always been the case as too many have half an eye on the Directorship they've spent their last 3 tours angling for. :( Also, at a lower SO1/2 level it will be interesting as cushy billets in DE&S disappear under GOCO!