Staffing levels

[Private jet]

Could someone from the RN please explain why there are more Admirals (of various types) than there are ships & subs??? We do suspect "job's for the boy's" but is there a rationale that doesn't involve the tradition or arrogance or making a good living from the taxpayer??

[thing]

We do suspect "job's for the buoy's"

Edited for accuracy.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Pheasant]

Nothing to do with the number of ships. The number of "stars" is driven by the requirement at that level both in UK Mil jobs and in Joint jobs within NATO and Allied organisations. As UK plc wishes to be represented at "star" level within NATO etc additional posts will be required to be filled over and above the national requirement. Add to that the requirement within the procurement organisation for "star" level directors then one can see why there are more Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals than the number of formations demand. It is a non story.

[Red Line Entry]

If you get away from thinking that all military personnel at senior level are expected to be involved in leading people to kill other people, and instead consider them as experienced, knowledgeable experts in the business of defence, then it makes more sense.

Do you ask if BP have more senior leaders than oil rigs? Or if Mercedes have more directors than factories?

[Private jet]

Thankyou for your eloquent explanations. A very nice self perpetuating arse kissers club, at tax payers expense too! brilliant! All that god, sorry, GOLD braid too, fabulous!

Red Line; I don't question BP or Mercedes because I do not fund them unless I wish to buy one of their products. Your reply is very disingenuous i'm afraid. Typical establishment bluster.

[Red Line Entry]

Simply because BP or Mercedes are not publicly funded does not make the comparison invalid. Like those companies, the military is a large and complex organisation that is required to deliver an output demanded by its customer, that customer being the taxpayer.

So if you, as the taxpayer, want senior people with appropriate experience and training making the important decisions, then you have to have a structure that allows sufficient numbers of such people to be employed.

..but why do I feel I'm wasting my time treating your question seriously...?

[Private jet]

Red Line;
The very fact that the military is publicly funded makes my scrutiny, as a taxpayer, all the more important and this is where the complacency and arrogance of the military as a whole, in ignoring it, is quite unacceptable in the modern era. I suspect in the era of modern warfare a well chosen mercenary army would be far more effective and efficient than the traditional vestiges of the established system. Remember, Napoleon didn't need "clever" generals he preferred lucky ones, and before you say how "clever" Wellington was, his men outnumbered the opposition 3 to 1.

[Red Line Entry]

'Scrutiny' is not making generic insults of complacency and arrogance. I would fully agree that there are plenty of areas in the British military that could be improved, but rather than just throw unsubstantiated accusations, why don't you give some examples of what you consider waste?

So here's a proposal PJ.

Of all those unnecessary admirals, generals and air marshals, name 5 senior level posts that you think should be disestablished, and then explain who you would ask to do the job, or why you think the job does not need doing.

[Red Line Entry]

Or how about you just start with one?

[Private jet]

Red Line;
No. I don't play that game. You should be a politician, but of course most of the "top brass" already are or act as, in an unelected capacity of course.
I told you I strongly suspect a mercenary force would be highly capable at getting the job done in the modern combat climate. Uniforms are redundant as recent events have tragically shown us. All the expensive "expertise" of Admirals/Generals/ Air Marshall's etc etc. is, apparently worth it because they, and you, and the establishment say it is. Times have changed, unfortunately, and due to many vested interests, the military establishment has not.

[Archimedes]

A mercenary force might be capable of getting the job done, but there are one or two teensy legal and ethical problems with their employment as a cursory examination of the UN Mercenary Convention (in full, not the Wikipedia entry), the protocols to the laws of armed conflict and the burgeoning literature over the challenges of regulating Private Military Companies (both in terms of the way their employers use them and their position under status of forces agreements in host nations) demonstrates.

I'm not going to comment further about the rank issue, since the tone of your responses suggests that you're not remotely interested in the answers offered to what wasn't, in fact, a sincere question, but bait.

[thing]

He's trolling (or a Grauniad reporter) on the Private Flying bit of the forum at the moment as well. Keep it going, it's better than watching telly.

[Whenurhappy]

PJ,

I work in the international environment where there are a small number of senior ranks doing what we refer to as Defence Engagement (previously Defence Diplomacy). A lot of it is about meetings in smoked-filled rooms; sidebar discussions with senior foreign diplomats as the trays of Ferrero Roche are passed about; exhausted spouses of said senior officers hosting yet more dinner parties to facilitate protection of British interests and National Security. You may snigger at it but I suggest you watch the Mitchell and Webb gem 'The Ambassadors' to see what I mean.

Now of course we could replace these senior Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals (and there is only a handful) and their long-suffering wives with young contractors - mercenaries if you like. Firstly, they wouldn't be accredited as Diplomats; secondly they would have absolutely no traction with the local cognoscenti; thirdly they would not deliver any Joint Effect.

But I'm sure you'd enjoy debating the point in the 6th Form Common Room.

[Melchett01]

It is amazing how ignorant some people can be and as much as I'll probably regret it, I'll bite, I've got a couple of minutes free.

So you intend to disband the military - that rings a bell, can't quite place it, but I have a vague recollection it didn't end well for the country in question, and replace us all with mercenaries of questionable loyalty and values.

You mean mercenaries like these?Blackwater guards found guilty in Baghdad mass shootings - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackwater-case-former-guards-convicted-in-baghdad-mass-shootings/)

As for unelected top brass, given that the most senior appointments are ratified by the government rather than just made by the services, and that you as a voter elect the government to act in your behalf .....

Or are you just a rabid socialist who detests the idea of organisational hierarchies? Or did you just fail OASC?

[pr00ne]

Private Jet,
The initial OP is wrong.

There aren't more Admirals in the RN than ships.

There are 40 Admirals serving in the RN, and the RN currently has 60 ships, not counting minor and patrol vessels, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary or ships (such as the 2 aircraft carriers) building or on order.

[Jimlad1]

Last time I looked, there were roughly 10 Admirals and RM Generals to directly lead the 'core' naval service of some 30,000 people, of whom 6 sit on the Admiralty board.

In rough terms thats the head of the RN (1SL), the head of the Fleet (generates the warships and deploys them), the head of the Naval Personnel and training side (2SL).

There is then a small number of supporting 2* posts linked to heading up specific areas where you need for various good reasons a senior officer. Most of these 2* posts are double or triple hatted - in other words, the incumbent gets to do three jobs that twenty years ago would usually have each had one person doing them full time. For instance the current Naval Secretary is the personnel manager for the RN, senior officer for Scotland/NI, and also the senior 2* to lead the Reserves.

The remaining 20 or so posts are for 'purple' jobs outside of the RN, but where the RN has an interest in filling them, for instance Chief of Defence Intelligence or some NATO posts.

Having had some exposure to these Admirals and other seniors, I'd say this. They work VERY hard, they get very few perks, their days start early and finish late, and they earn a fraction of what they could earn for posts with similar responsiblities in civvy street. They also exist from one job to the next, and if their post finishes and no suitable role exists, they are out of the service - something that happens a lot.

Frankly I find these tired arguments about Admirals pathetic. The total 2* and above plot for the Naval Service is roughly 0.1% of its total manpower, yet we act as if this is somehow a bad thing. More widely the total RN manpower figure for all OF5 and above still only comes in at roughly 350 people (so rougly 1% of naval manning or 350 people). Add in all the SO1s and you go up to roughly 1500 people, or 5% of Naval Service manning for all Commanders and above.

There are very few multi-billion pound industries out there withtens of thousands of employees, with such a tight top level of management. To add to this, there is a constant pressure to identify savings and reduce posts further.

[Willard Whyte]

The problem isn't too many admirals, or air marshals, it's not enough boats, or 'planes.

[Just This Once...]

Two great but very different posts in a row. Taken together they neatly top and tail the argument.

:D

[Hangarshuffle]

Good answers there. I wonder what kind of person Private Jet is and why he seems so bitter at the Navy? Most people who get up to being an Admiral have grafted pretty hard, to be fair to them, although I don't actually like some of them, at all. And the financial rewards for being a serviceman generally, they aren't that good really, in the grand scheme of things..(if its pay or money that annoys him so).


I can think of quite a few things that get my goat about the UK, waste of taxpayers money or whatever, more than this.
Such as blatant tax avoidance by major international corporations operating in the UK. Or politicians now and former accruing enough wealth to buy multi million pound houses. Or zero hours contracts for hundreds of thousands of Britons, and the misbalance of pay in the UK and all that that brings to our economy in general. Or VAT at 20%. I've had enough now.

[kintyred]

I think that PrivateJet's point is well made. I served with another nation for whose military it was perfectly normal to adopt local acting unpaid rank for many functions. I certainly think that consideration should be given to putting a ceiling on paid senior ranks within the UK military. That way the Brass could have as many appointments as it felt necessary but without undue expense for the taxpayer.

[Hangarshuffle]

How much is the payroll then? I'd like to see it, and in comparison to other Government Departments, and perhaps a few roughly comparable civilian organizations, such as a shipping line, or an UK offshore oil company.

[kintyred]

So if government departments are big spenders that's OK then is it? Private companies are another matter entirely....take up the wage bill with the owners.....the shareholders...not the taxpayer.

[163627]

To put this whole issue into perspective may I refer anyone who is interested to "Losing Small Wars" by Frank Ledwidge (pages 110 - 112 of the paperback edition). A very good read on many levels.

[Whenurhappy]

I served with another nation for whose military it was perfectly normal to adopt local acting unpaid rank for many functions.

Well, it might work...until something goes wrong. I present the case of Brig Saunders, assassinated in Athens in 1999. Local, unpaid rank and his widow (quite rightly) argued for some years that she should receive a Brigadier's Pension on the basis that he was wearing the rank and doing the job when Nov 17 slotted him. I'm sure there are quite a few examples from AFG and Iraq where 'local' rank ended in a few tears. My replacement in AFG was Army and given acting rank because of parity with the US - it took quite a battle to persuade MS that this was necessary.

I certainly think that consideration should be given to putting a ceiling on paid senior ranks within the UK military.

There is. But as Jim pointed out, the total numbers are miniscule. However, if someone is doing the job of that rank, what's wrong with paying them for it? (qv my earlier comments about Brig Saunders).

[Jimlad1]

There is also a wider issue that culturally some people seem to think that if you are an SO1 or OF5, then that makes you an amazing officer who naturally should be in charge. Make them a 1 or 2* and suddenly they overnight become pompous airheads without a clue.

I'm not sure why we think lower ranks are somehow 'better'?

[Melchett01]

I'm not sure why we think lower ranks are somehow 'better'?

It's probably a political statement on one level or another. Accepting it's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, I'd wager most people that peddle this argument of cheaper is better either have a sense of entitlement (it's my taxes funding this and I want to pay as little as possible, hang the consequences, they are irrelevant to me) and therefore feel their opinion is automatically correct and should be adopted as policy regardless of the facts. Or they are in a civilian organisation that isn't doing particularly well and having been on the receiving end of cuts and freezes to stay afloat and thinks the public sector is bloated and ripe for plucking.

It's funny how none you rarely heard these claims of cheaper is better when the economy was booming and the civilian sectors were rolling in cash whilst the military scraped by.

But you are correct that rank doesn't necessarily equate to better. I can't remember where I heard it, it may even have been a movie, a VSO dressing down another officer and using the line I'm your superior officer, to which came the reply higher ranking yes, superior no :D

[Whenurhappy]

As some of you know, I've been away from the mainstream air force for a number of years and only keep track of my contemporaries in the NY Honours List or on Social Media. I continue to be amazed how some of them have got to SO1 and above (no doubt they think that about me...).

There are a couple of chaps who have recently 'friended' me. One is a Wg Cdr and the other a Gp Capt. They were distinctly average junior officers, not particularly bright, not particularly quick on the up-take, but worked hard and did a range of eye-wateringly dull station and HQ tours, did a secondary duty or two, a bit of charity work possibly, and perhaps with an operational tour thrown in (at least the Jubilee medals won't look lonely!). But, as senior officers? At best in industry or other government departments they'd make middle-management, just.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on them, and perhaps I need a dose of the 'real air force' to adjust my attitudes. I hope not.

[Biggus]

I wonder what they think of you?

[Whenurhappy]

I wonder what they think of you?

As I said:

I continue to be amazed how some of them have got to SO1 and above (no doubt they think that about me...).


I attended a Branch conference a year or two ago and and those who hadn't seen me since 2001 were firstly surprised to see I was still serving and secondly, amazed/jealous/uncomprehending that I had managed 3 full and rather interesting overseas tours in interesting locations (and Op tours as well), and bleated on about me being on the mythical 'overseas posting list'. Lots of narrowing of eyes and 'you jammy b&stard' fake banter.

But when I challenged them and asked why they wouldn't serve overseas, it was 'well, you see, the kids are settled' or 'the wife, she's got a good job at the Council' or, more accurately, 'well, I don't know if we'd like it' and the 'well, it depends if I get a Command and a NATO tour isn't good for my profile'.

The conference was more to do with communal wrist slashing and managing decline, rather than 'hey, we've got the 2nd most deployable Air Force in the world and we are still pretty good at kicking ar$e, and most other countries still look up to us to set the standards'.

I've worked with quite a few foreign air force personnel from all over NATO (and elsewhere) and I have to say, once you step away from the 5 eyes and FAF cabal, most other air forces are sadly lacking - in equipment, training, vision, staff capabilities and - dare I say it - uniforms!

[Hangarshuffle]

What are the Russians like happy? Are they a good air force? Only thing I ever see of them (and ever want to) is on You Tube and the net. I haven't seen Russian aircraft since 1985, I think. on carriers in the cold war when they buzzed us (Bears, Bison's all that era..).
I think a lot of service people would be surprised how easy it is outside at work, if you get into the right job and groove...I grafted like a madman at times in the forces, for average money and some really indifferent/arse treatment at times...more fool me of course.
Actually, in retrospect its so different outside, it hardly stands up for comparison. You are expected to do so much as a serviceman...your trade or profession, incredible staffwork and IT...shooting....drinking to a professional standard, but keeping fit.. its endless. PJ would never get it.

[kintyred]

I think that what Whenurhappy said will resonate with a lot of service personnel. My experience from the sharp end of the Air Force (SH Aircrew) is that the command structure didn't do much to assist me in my job and that latterly (2000 onwards) there was an increasing tendency by VSOs to burden the frontline with tasks that did little to enhance operational capability.....and often hindered it. I have no doubt that the top echelons could be significantly thinned out without detriment to operational output. There has been talk of multi-hatting but I think a root and branch review would reveal much nugatory or duplicated work. I accept the limitations of my lowly perspective but consistently had the impression that too many of my superiors were not task-focussed and as a result capability suffered.

[Union Jack]

.....than there are ships & subs??? We do suspect "job's for the boy's" - PJ

.....than there are ships & submarines??? We do suspect "jobs for the boys":=

Edited for accuracy.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

A very nice self perpetuating arse kissers club, at tax payers expense too! - PJ

Since PJ's profile doesn't tell us whether PJ owns one or flies one (or even whether he or she has nothing whatsoever to do with private jets), I suspect that he know he or she knows more than his or her fair share about arse kissing.:ooh:

The very fact that the military is publicly funded makes my scrutiny, as a taxpayer, all the more important and this is where the complacency and arrogance of the military as a whole, in ignoring it, is quite unacceptable in the modern era - PJ

A statement that hit the highest level on my arrogance meter.

And oh, whilst writing, some cracking responses from those who clearly know what they are talking about.:ok:

Jack

[Rosevidney1]

If the part about eating Ferrero Roche confectionary and attending parties is dreaded by those who have to do it then I would like to volunteer. I can't claim great experience but like the character in Dickens "I am Willing".

[orca]

I would humbly suggest that surmising that the military as a whole is exhibiting either complacency or arrogance wrt one's opinion, having voiced it solely on Pprune and collated the views of three whole (possibly military, possibly not) posters, might be viewed as as an extrapolation too far.

[Type1106]

Would someone be kind enough to explain to an old much retired Sqn Ldr (04 in U.S. parlance when I was on exchange) just what an OF5 (Wg CD-R perhaps?) and an SO1 might be?

Thank you

[MSOCS]

O4 (US desig) Sqn Ldr / Lt Cdr / Major
OF-4 (NATO desig) is Wg Cdr / Cdr / Lt Col
OF-5 is a Gp Capt / Capt / Colonel

An SO1 is a Staff Officer of Wg Cdr level (SO2 is Sqn Ldr etc) which is often incorrectly used to refer to a rank across the board (i.e. flying or field job), rather than a rank in a STAFF post (i.e. HQ).

It's all rather tiresome frankly, as is this banal thread, started by a complete troll.

[Type1106]

MSOCS - thank you and how true! I'm surprised the Mods let this thread get this far starting as it did by an obvious troll who, I now note, has dissapeared.

Thanks again

[Whenurhappy]

Referring to my previous posts, I never cease to be amazed by the banality of some of our senior officers (Wg Cdr/Gp Capts). They apply staff college '7 step' methodology to problem solving or use the latest management-speak technique learned on their correspondence course with Staffordshire University, but do they really think about the problems in wider, indeed global sense? Do they approach problems understanding the basic concept of accumulated risk at point of delivery?

I did a pretty high-pressure tour in town and I was blessed with good, hard thinking team mates, AD and Director; most have now left out of frustration with 'the system'. I've chosen my own course, yet daily I hit the key-board with my head out of frustration dealing with the friction of a sclerotic support system that is the antithesis of mission command. Why do we make daily life support - especially for those overseas - so hard? What company in Britain requires that you send a fax??????? What company insists that you serve 11 months unaccompanied in a 'hardship' post, but doesn't fly you home? Or book expensive travel through a contractor 'or you won't be refunded'? Grrrr. And it's not even Monday.


And relaxxxxxxxx

[Melchett01]

They apply staff college '7 step' methodology to problem solving or use the latest management-speak technique learned on their correspondence course with Staffordshire University, but do they really think about the problems in wider, indeed global sense?

And at the risk of being controversial, I bet neither ISIL nor the Taleban bothered with the 7 step approach! Maybe that's how we defeat them - sign them up to staff college and wait for them to seize up and institutionalise!

[Whenurhappy]

And at the risk of being controversial, I bet neither ISIL nor the Taleban bothered with the 7 step approach! Maybe that's how we defeat them - sign them up to staff college and wait for them to seize up and institutionalise!

My point exactly. Banal approaches to problem-solving by a banal cohort of senior officers who should have left years ago. Not all, but there are a lot of place-holders in the system even now. To be honest, I should place myself in that category as well.

[thing]

I did a pretty high-pressure tour in town and I was blessed with good, hard thinking team mates, AD and Director; most have now left out of frustration with 'the system'. I've chosen my own course, yet daily I hit the key-board with my head out of frustration dealing with the friction of a sclerotic support system

This isn't exactly unique in civvy street either...it's not a forces thing. However you will be pleased to note that when one reaches the late fifties almost everything comes into focus and the things that made you hit your head on the keyboard become an amusing distraction...:ok:

[Whenurhappy]

However you will be pleased to note that when one reaches the late fifties almost everything comes into focus and the things that made you hit your head on the keyboard become an amusing distraction...

Oh goodie - not long to go! People always said I was old for my age...

[thing]

Hey I'm nearly fifty nine and it's without a doubt the best age of my life so far.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

I had a discussion with a colleague over Christmas on the topic of the quality of senior leaders in the military and we agreed that they currently(in general, there are of course exceptions) tend not to be of the top drawer. We appear to be led by what the army would term as "top of middle third". Why? The top third recognise their value (or have it recognised for them) and are invited/convinced to employ it elsewhere, the bottom third are recognised as such and are required to leave the service at the earliest opportunity. That leaves the middle third who, naturally, sit somewhere between the two and it's from that layer that we select our current and future leaders.

They end up with a "sent down with the rations" MA, having conformed for a year on ACSC and climb the greasy pole by sticking to the regulations and avoiding controversy. When they get to a position of substance we all of a sudden expect them to ditch that which has got them there (risk aversion, conformity and not putting their name to controversial decisions) and become dynamic leaders. Funnily enough, as they are at this point in their late 40s/early 50s they unsurprisingly fail to change their behaviours.

As an army colleague of mine put it, the best Generals leave the army as Captains. I'm not overly cynical, just experienced enough to have seen how we tend to promote managers/those willing to flog themselves in an outer office (other similar roles are available); valuing managers (of time, workload, process) over leaders.

No I didn't get staff college (thankfully, in retrospect), no I've never worked an outer office, yes I've op tours under my belt (and not just ones that kept me out of the redundancy bracket) and no I'm not bitter, over-promoted yes, bitter, no!

[Haraka]

Nothing changes much. It was back in the sixties I first heard the lament, and I guess it wasn't new then.

" We used to have aircraft made of wood commanded by men of steel: it's the other way round now".

[Red Line Entry]

I think there's another element here. As people get to Air Rank, they get exposed to issues that are invisible, irrelevant or trivial to those at lower rank. My own rank doesn't start with 'Air' but I've been close enough to see the amount of time our 'stars' have to devote to public engagement, ministerial concerns, inter-service and international negotiation, service complaints (huge for some), promotion boards, routine meetings and the like, before they can even think about the day job! Now perhaps some of all that is true for many these days, but fortunately for most of us, our ranks don't expose us to the level of public judgement that is easy to make on a forum such as this!

So if we expect them to have the headroom to really make a difference, maybe we should have more, not fewer (the OP would love that!).

[Pontius Navigator]

MB, probably something in that.

The officer pool is comprised largely of JO and SO, the worker bees if you like and essential to any organization to staff the organisation. Now in the military the VSO are drawn entirely from this pool. The gene pool is small compared with industry or civil service (which can draw from industry).

The up or out amongst VSO is certainly necessary to thin the upper ranks. If you want to serve to 55 stay as a wg cdr.

Met one OC Eng, amazing CV, oil exploration in Saudi, worked in Antarctica, then joined RAF. Reached OC Eng by 40, and said there is nothing I can see for me in the RAF now. Off he went.

[Haraka]

public engagement, ministerial concerns, inter-service and international negotiation, service complaints (huge for some), promotion boards, routine meetings and the like, before they can even think about the day job!

That lot ( or its equivalent) is likely to come with any senior position in a big organisation, as an inclusive part of the job.

[Wander00]

Didn't someone write


"Stick close to your desk and never go to sea
And you will be ruler of the Queen's Navee

[Haraka]

and somebody else:

" The field of war is no place for the career officer"

[Whenurhappy]

Mahogany Bomber:

I had a discussion with a colleague over Christmas on the topic of the quality of senior leaders in the military and we agreed that they currently(in general, there are of course exceptions) tend not to be of the top drawer. We appear to be led by what the army would term as "top of middle third". Why? The top third recognise their value (or have it recognised for them) and are invited/convinced to employ it elsewhere, the bottom third are recognised as such and are required to leave the service at the earliest opportunity. That leaves the middle third who, naturally, sit somewhere between the two and it's from that layer that we select our current and future leaders.

They end up with a "sent down with the rations" MA, having conformed for a year on ACSC and climb the greasy pole by sticking to the regulations and avoiding controversy. When they get to a position of substance we all of a sudden expect them to ditch that which has got them there (risk aversion, conformity and not putting their name to controversial decisions) and become dynamic leaders. Funnily enough, as they are at this point in their late 40s/early 50s they unsurprisingly fail to change their behaviours.

As an army colleague of mine put it, the best Generals leave the army as Captains. I'm not overly cynical, just experienced enough to have seen how we tend to promote managers/those willing to flog themselves in an outer office (other similar roles are available); valuing managers (of time, workload, process) over leaders.


MB - I could not have put this better myself - you are spot on and this supports my thesis (above) concerning risk averse and banal middle and senior ranked officers. Again, I see these officers with a string of degrees (all Masters') after their names and wonder how on Earth they obtained them, knowing them when they were junior officers. I joined the RAF after a 'proper' five year Masters' - but not Shrivenham, so, in effect, it didn't count. Moreover, a number of people I know who have done both - the fellowship at Cambridge and then ACSC - also confirm that they found the Dissertation at Shrivenham particularly easy and not particularly demanding, rating it as undergraduate level. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am; I did a foreign staff course and was awarded a Masters' Degree from that, which I don't bother to list because it is largely meaningless.

[haltonapp]

My brother, a civil servant at Abbey Wood, told me that it was a recognised fact that most people get promoted to their level of incompetency!

[Pontius Navigator]

HA, "C Northcote Parkinson"

[Biggus]

No doubt this will please the OP.

BBC News - Senior British army roles likely to be cut (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30962007)

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius - I think you'll find that being elevated to ones level of incompetency is "the Peter Principle"

Parkinsons Laws are "work expands to fill the time available" and " Senior managers generate subordinates"



All of them all to true

[Heathrow Harry]

The comparison with the US Army is quite something - they have 50% more SO's to run 500% more men

and no-one ever claimed the US Army was exactly lean and mean................ half of them seem to be in Washington DC

One thing is for sure - the Army won't take that hit on their own - a lot of SO's in the RAF and Navy will be looking for work soon I think

[airpolice]

Forgive me if this has been covered, but what is the ratio of Squadron Leaders to Squadrons in the current RAF?

I mean that to only include "proper" Squadrons, not the bits that were previously sections of Ops wing, like the Air Traffic Control squadron at every station.

[jayc530]

Sqn Ldrs don't lead Sqns, Wg Cdrs do.

[kintyred]

Something tells me that the review into senior officer numbers might not yield the results that will produce the more slimline, efficient command structure General Carter talks of.......oh yes I remember now, previous experience.

[brakedwell]

When Gp Capt Beetham was station master at Khormaksar in 1965, I remember him saying, "An officer is not an officer until he reaches the rank of Wing Commander".

[Hangarshuffle]

Ranks of senior army officers to be slashed in latest reforms, say reports | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/24/ranks-of-senior-army-officers-to-be-slashed-in-latest-reforms-say-reports)


Comes under a politics header, not defence interestingly.
Army first, then Navy, RAF. Looks like some of you will be looking for new jobs in 21st century Britain.
Which is a shock if you cop it, but not a world ender by any means. Embrace it, if it comes.
A lot of the comments in the Grad are interesting in the impression many civilians have of the senior officers in the military-lots of talk of old men, sitting in rooms, flying desks with swords attached, sumptuous messes, kids at top schools.....and so forth.
Wonder why this is so, is it a TV thing, peoples images of the military shaped by TV, Monty python, Blackadder?
Both Colonels I worked for were entirely the opposite to that image and would have fitted in well in the civilian organizations I've worked in since. So, chin up.

[Willard Whyte]

When Gp Capt Beetham was station master at Khormaksar in 1965, I remember him saying, "An officer is not an officer until he reaches the rank of Wing Commander".

Sounds as though he was a complete tosser.

[Willard Whyte]

Sqn Ldrs don't lead Sqns, Wg Cdrs do.

Well known, and thus I suspect you may have missed the point.

[jayc530]

WW

I think not. The point being Sqn Ldrs don't lead Sqns.

[Melchett01]

Which is a shock if you cop it, but not a world ender by any means. Embrace it, if it comes.

Might be more of a problem for the country when you can't carry out the political direction because you've chopped the leadership and experience required not only to lead fighting units, but also to plan, sustain, direct and develop.

A lot of the comments in the Grad are interesting in the impression many civilians have of the senior officers in the military-lots of talk of old men, sitting in rooms, flying desks with swords attached, sumptuous messes, kids at top schools.....and so forth.

Because most of the comments of this type, regardless of newspaper, are made by ill-informed arm chair generals that think because they've watched Zulu, A Bridge Too Far and the annual repeat of Dad's Army, they are qualified to shape and run the nation's defences. A belief only compounded by a 21st century sense of self entitlement that I pay my taxes and therefore DEMAND that my opinion is listened to and implemented. There are things my taxes go towards that I'm not overly happy about, but as taxes are the price we pay for membership of the club, then you have to accept these things.

[Evalu8ter]

MB,
Sometimes it really does feel like we're being led by the top of the middle third. Whilst there are notable exceptions, many of these are 'be-ers', determined to follow the proscribed course, secure a sponsor (doubtless cut from the same cloth) avoid risk and if at all possible avoid original thought. Truly as Boyd described:

To Be Or To Do? | Defense and the National Interest (http://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/)

Such men can only succeed if the pile below them retains sufficient experience and knowledge to cover their gaps. Increasingly it is this core at Wg Cdr and below that is bailing out as they find they are not 'in the club', and are tempted by fresh challenges outside.

[Wrathmonk]

The reduction in the top levels has been tried before and didn't work. It will be used as an excuse to clear out the 'dead wood' to allow some breathing space for the 'thrusters' to be promoted into....

And all this bitching about how many sqn ldrs etc....you may want to ask how many wg cdr engineers there are in the RAF. The answer (certainly when I last looked) may surprise you. And not because it is a low number!;)

[Cornish Jack]

Sounds as though he was a complete tosser.
From personal experience ('55-58) not an isolated individual but with some exceptional opposites, too.
Am half way through a book by AVM Sandy Johnstone which is an anecdotal collection rather than an autobiography and two incidents stand out so far ... when operating as Staff Officer, he organised a Mosquito to be available at his local airfield and was subsequently tasked to fly Leigh-Mallory to France after D-Day ... never having flown one before!!!:eek: This was duly accomplished, after finding out about torque effects on the take-off:=
The second was a meeting with Ike, when one of his staff came in with a soon-to-be-published order, declaring it to be 'fine for publication' Johnstone remarked that the individual appeared to be 'a few sandwiches short of a picnic' or its equivalent. Ike replied that this was so - and intentional!! His reasoning was that if the order made sense to this individual, it was fit to be published.:D
Having been around in the days of the Atcherleys and Paddy Bandon, when I left after 35 plus years, I left a VERY different organisation and found working in BA and Virgin a most pleasant shock to the system.:ok::) What I read of today's version of the Royal Air Force would most certainly not induce me to a repeat performance.:yuk:

[jayc530]

Wrathmonk

All ranks at Sqn Ldr and above are over manned, some by 115%. How can that be accetable when nearly every other rank is under manned.

[Just This Once...]

jay, you keep posting that figure on this forum but it is not one I recognise and it is nothing like the manning figures that pass my desk. Where did you get it from?

[jayc530]

The Manning MOSS site!

[Biggus]

jay,

When you say some ranks above Sqn Ldr are over manned by 115%, are you saying they have 215% of the required number?

If there are 115% of the required number then the overmanning level is only actually 15%.

[jayc530]

Biggus

Yes, 215% of the required trained strength hence over manned by 115%.

[Party Animal]

Jayc530 - please enlighten readers as to how many sqn ldr pilots the RAF is currently overmanned by?

[Melchett01]

I'd love to know where any of these extra 115% are hiding, irrespective of Branch.

According to the latest DASA statistics, the RAF as a whole was running a deficit of 2070 personnel on 1 Dec 14. Added to this, the PVR rate for officers has increased from 2.8% to 3.6% from FY 11/12 to 13/14.

Additionally, in a Parliamentary Briefing note submitted to the HoC Library in Sep 14 noted that the RAF officer cadre as a whole was 7.7% under strength as of Jul 14.

Now I don't have access to the Manning MOSS site, but to me, something doesn't quite add up to say that one section of the RAF officer cadre is effectively at double strength whilst the Cadre as a whole is under strength and the PVR rate is growing. There seems to be something not quite right with the figures somewhere here.

[Just This Once...]

Hang on guys, this chap has form:

Air Cdre and above over manned by 115%. All ranks from Sqn Ldr are also overmanned.

One of his many posts on this subject. There is in no way shape or form an extra 80 or so 1-stars kicking about with nothing to do. From memory there are only 70 or so 1-star posts and around 72 of them in the system. The RAF declared 75 serving 1-stars back in Apr 14; the figure will be lower for 2015.

[Wyler]

It's not rocket science.
Sqn Ldr runs a Sqn. Wg Cdr runs a Wing. Gp Capt runs a Group.
So, say 6 Typhoon Sqns on two Stations then then you have 6 Sqn Ldrs. Two Wg Cdrs and one Gp Capt.
Apply that approach across the board and hey presto, savings with, I argue, no loss of standards.
Simples. :E

[brakedwell]

Are there 6 Typhoon Squadrons?

[JAJM]

Are there 6 Typhoon Squadrons?

Yes. Five are front-line, one is the OCU. Plus there's 1435 Flight in the Falklands and 41 Sqn has six aircraft for test & evaluation. If I'm not mistaken.

[pr00ne]

Wyler,

They are ranks, not job descriptions!

RAF Squadrons have been led by Wing Commanders since the early 1940's, based on numbers of people reporting to them and responsibility held.

On the larger stations in the 70's there were station commanders who were Air Commodore's, such as Brize Norton and Akrotiri, with the Wings commanded by Group Captains.

Something similar happened in Bomber Command at the peak of it's size in WW2, stations were grouped into Bases, with each base commanded by an Air Commodore and three Group Captains commanding the three stations in that base.

No. 8 Group even went further and simply increased the relative rank for EVERY officer in the Group, and that was in 1943...

[Engines]

I've hesitated about posting join this thread, but I thought that my personal experience here might help the exchange of views. I served in a number of RN unit and staff appointments thought the 80s and 90s into the 00s, mostly at what became better known as SO1, SO2 and SO3 levels.

I have to observe that during that time, there was a clear and regrettable tendency across all three services (and the Civil Service) to inflate the ranks required to hold down a post. In my direct experience, I left an Engineering Authority post in the early 90s as a Lt Cdr (SO2). Seven years later, that post was held by a full Captain. The 'grade inflation' outstripped my modest abilities to move up the ladder, and potential jobs were accelerating away from me.

This was a true 'tri-service' issue. The honest truth was that the officer 'class' of all three services were doing nothing more than looking after themselves by inventing ever more spurious reasons to award themselves higher pay via promotion. And it led to devaluation of ranks and distortion of effort right down there ladders. Again, in my direct experience, I encountered SO3s doing tasks that not only could have been carried out by SNCOs, but should have been. The SNCOs would have made a better fist of them. Meanwhile the SO3s were rightly getting fed up with the way that they were being under-employed.

This effect was noted a few years ago in evidence to parliament, and I remember some interesting graphs appearing showing how the numbers of OF-5 and OF-6 posts had just exploded, particularly during the 90s, across all three services and the CS equivalents.

My take is that the UK Armed Forces need a serious 'reset' on what they expect their officers to do at the various ranks. It would not only give the taxpayer better value for money, but also far more rewarding and enjoyable jobs for the junior officers - and that would lead to better senior officers.

Hope this helps

Engines

[orca]

Concur entirely Engines. Just the other day I was talking to a Lt RN who had been forced to endure the spectacle of a 1 star - with much theatre, making the same decision, for a single aircraft, as the Lt had been authorised to make in his previous job.

How often do we see the requirement for a brief such that those with the empowerment (some number of needless stars) can have a fraction of the SA of the experts? Why do we insist on wasting peoples' time pushing decisions up the chain when they could be made easily, and appropriately at desk level?

The other function this staffing performs is to ensure, due to lag in working group, to steering group, to programme board, to service board that by the time the 3 star makes the bleeding obvious decision that the SO2 could have made for him, we are three months down the road and the SO2 is trying to make the next decision - but is merely (forlornly) penning another brief for his SO1.

[Willard Whyte]

WW

I think not. The point being Sqn Ldrs don't lead Sqns.

I think yes, you have missed the point. Well, if not the point then certainly a point. Oh yes.

Although in fact it doesn't matter what rank they are. One could quite easily 'reset' ranks by one step. It would at least be logical. Could even pay them the same as their old rank, although now I'm retired I would laugh like a drain if they all had a pay cut.

[kintyred]

I remember reading a briefing sheet put out by our OC Admin in 2000 showing the percentage reductions in numbers of RAF personnel betwwen 1990 and 99. ORs 31%, JOs 14%, SOs 3%. I'm pessimistic about the outcome of the forthcoming review into SO numbers.

[Melchett01]

Might those percentages be less a conspiracy and more to do with the way the RAF and units are structured - in fact any unit in any of the Services.

If the aim is to trim fat and cut costs, you cut units and sqns. Which means you're only going to lose a single wg cdr and a handful of sqn ldrs but a lot of ORs.

I think it will be similar this time round. The nature of the warfare today is that it has become less manpower intensive whilst there is a seemingly ever level if effort required on the staffing side to comply with all the various bits of policy, emerging doctrine, technology and planning for multiple ops, most if which never see light of day.

Now Orca has a point, there have been plenty of tines that I as an SO2 could have made a decision but wasn't allowed to, it had to go to a grown up for sign off. So let's use the people we have more wisely, but let's not pretend that in doing so we will cut huge amounts of personnel in the process. Vested interests apart, who would do all the dull staff and HQ jobs if old farts like me aren't shuffled off into a warm chair? I'm not sure getting your fighting elements to do them is best use of their time and specific skillsets.

[Union Jack]

His reasoning was that if the order made sense to this individual, it was fit to be published. - Cornish Jack

Always used to be known variously as "the Major Smith test", or with a similar reference to Napoleon's thickest major - if they could understand an order, then anyone could.:ooh:

Jack

[Red Line Entry]

Jayc,

With respect, your figures are hoop. There are (very roughly!) about 3900 sqn ldrs and above and (very roughly!) 3400 established, productive posts for them. So, in bare terms, that is about 15% 'overmanned' (NOT 115%).

However, deduct a whole bunch of warm bodies who are unavailable to fill established posts because of training courses, long-term sickness, p/m-aternity leave, in unestablished posts (short or long term), on Service Inquiries, terminal leave, etc, etc, then it's no surprise that the average stn has gaps at sqn ldr level.

[jayc530]

RLE

I never stated that Sqn Ldrs were over manned by 115%, I commented that some ranks are over manned by that figure. Sqn Ldrs are the least over manned at 3%.

I take it you have the document I'm referring too?

Page 19 clearly states the surplus %.

[Red Line Entry]

Jayc,

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Note my figures are for all ranks at sqn ldr and above. My source was different from your document (and no doubt both are equally inaccurate!)

[jayc530]

Government Statistical Service.

[Selatar]

Well speaking personally of the four light blue SO2s who left my last area the average gap before we got a replacement was 4 months. Priority 3 manning slot mind you. Still, hardly reaks of overmanning.

Was discussed on another pprune thread recently but the SDSR bespoke look at OF5s and above recently reported cuts of circa 8% with much 'job well done' satisfaction. Sadly, overall manpower has fallen by circa 20% in the same period so as a force percentage there are now more seniors than before the review to specifically reduce them! To counter, the OF5s I've worked for recently work bloody hard - not sure where all the lazy seniors are lurking?

[Biggus]

jayc530,

Why can't you just post a link to the document you are looking at and stop all the mystery? Government Statistical Service data doesn't appear to be classified. As an example, I found this one, which isn't yours but must be getting close:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373115/af-quarterly_personnel_report_oct14.pdf

[jayc530]

It's on the Manning MOSS page under Branch and Trade Sponsors, Training and Manpower, Annual Compedium of RAF Manpower Statistics.

[Hangarshuffle]

Reading back over the last 3 dozen odd posts, I'm thinking now maybe its justified for a re-adjustment.

[Biggus]

I don't have access to the page jayc530 is referring to, but in the interests of introducing some facts into this "debate", Table 1 on page 5 of this link gives the numbers of officers by rank in the RAF on 1st April 2014:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312539/uk_af_annual_personnel_report_2014.pdf

In terms of number of senior officers vs overall size of service (which is admittedly a very crude measurement), the RAF (35,230) and RN (33,330) seem fairly similar in terms of numbers of OF-9/8/7/6.

In fact, especially given the recent news about reducing the number of Army senior officers, the Army seems to be the leanest of the three. At 91,070 it is about 2.5 x the size of the RAF, but generally has less than 2.5 x the number of senior officers the RAF and RN have.

I will once again state my size of servive vs number of senior officers is a very crude method of comparison.

As for having 115% more than required in one of the RAF senior ranks, nothing leaps out.

Can you tell us which rank jayc530?

[Just This Once...]

Previously he said air cdre and above. I've checked the figures and this is simply not the case.

[jayc530]

Will someone who has access to the document I'm referring to please back me up.

[Wrathmonk]

Biggus (#94)

What struck me from your link (and table 1) is how many Warrant Officers (OR9) the RAF have. Granted, an element of these will by MACR but still, in percentage terms, it is double the Army (though, in fairness, they also have a WO2 rank). And in percentage terms the RAF have more OR6 (Sgt) and above than the other services.

Perhaps rank creep / rank gradient is not just a problem with RAF senior officers ....;)

[Biggus]

Wrathmonk,

The fighting element of the RAF is (in the main, before anyone has a go about their particular trade branch, such as Regiment, etc) generally the aircrew, which largely comprises junior officers and SNCOs. In the Army a Lt will lead 50 odd junior ranks into combat, in the RAF a Flt Lt may lead 3 other Flt Lts in a 4 ship into combat.

Thus the RAF has a higher proportion of OF-2s than either the RN or Army. Quite how many NCO Aircrew we have left these days I don't know, but their presence will inflate the RAF figures for OR-6, 7 and 9. I believe Kinloss used to have the largest Sgts Mess in the RAF at one stage, or was it Lyneham - the point is the same.

If you're saying we should reopen the debate about Cpls in flying posts in the RAF, well that would reduce your supposed "rank creep" at junior levels.

[Biggus]

jayc530,

Kindly don't think I'm "having a go" at you, or disputing your figures, it's just that I can't see them, or at least if they're in the public domain I can't find them.

I would be very interested to know which group is over manned by 115%. I'd like to know whether it is say Air Commodores in general, or something very specific like Gp Capt dentists?

[jayc530]

It states

Air Cdre & Above TOTAL Surplus 115% (GD 114.9%)

Gp Capt TOTAL Surplus 52.6% (GD 51.2%)

Wg Cdr TOTAL Surplus 13.9% (GD 15.7%)

Sqn Ldr TOTAL Surplus 3.0%

JO TOTAL Deficit 10.5%

[Biggus]

Thanks for that!

[Party Animal]

But scratching the surface reveals the surplus sqn ldr figure of 3% also has a sqn ldr 'pilot' deficit of 17.6%...

[Wrathmonk]

Biggus

More than happy with knowing who the fighting element of the RAF is and who actually fulfils that role (rank wise)! Not the point .... ;)

The point I was loosely making was that throughout this thread there has been a constant reference that jobs/decisions that used to be made by a flt lt/sgn ldr are now being made by gp capt/1*. That, to me, is rank creep. It seems to me that the same could be said amongst our WO/SNCO/JNCO cadre as well - upping the 'responsibility' level to keep jobs for the boys?

PS - if we're going cpl pilots does that mean we will have SAC (non-FJ) WSOs?:E

[Engines]

Wrath,

I thought it might help if I rejoined here.

Yes, there has undoubtedly been 'rank creep' - the phenomenon where decisions that were safe and efficiently taken at (for instance) SO2 level have now migrated up to Cdre or even two star. As well as justifying the larger number of senior posts with the resultant costs, this also leads to poorer and slower decision making, as orca has pointed out.

There's another aspect that i can personally testify to - and that has been the growth of officer numbers under the banner of 'jointery'. My own branch (RN Air Engineers) faced a huge challenge in the late 90s/early noughties to generate nearly 30 additional SO2 posts to feed the demands of JHC and JFH. To reiterate, not one more aircraft was in service, not one more sortie flown, but nearly 30 additional SO2s to 'manage' it. Oh, and a brace of SO1s as well. And Captains. And Commodores. And to my shame, I was complicit in it.

When JFH was set up, there was a deliberate decision to 'expand' the HQ staff numbers required to support the Sea Harrier fleet. Various reasons were given, including 'we're following best practice' to 'we want parity with the other Groups' to 'it helps build the officer corps'. The costs involved were never once considered. The only defence I can offer, and it's a poor one, is that I joined the team after the staffing levels were decided. My job was to invent new things for the additional bodies to do.

And thats what all bureaucracies that don't have to worry about cost do - they invent work to justify numbers. That's why all those senior officers are so busy. I could cite some simply awful examples of 'rank creep' from High Wycombe, but won't - I'm sure that all three Services and the CS could offer up similar idiocies.

However, try this one. I worked in DGA(N) in the 90s, when over 300 technical desks were supported by a highly efficient and well organised thing called a 'registry'. Younger readers won't know what that is - it was a team of admin clerks, overseen by one admin officer, who made sure that every piece of paper coming in and out was filed, every file (or 'pack') was kept up to date, and that all the information was readily available to the desk officers. Airworthiness files were subjected to special additional controls, befitting their importance. DGA(N)'s registry was eight strong.

In my last spell in DE&S, a PT of around 90 desk officers was now supported by a 'Business Management' team of around 12, almost all of who were 'admin officer' grades. The head of BM was now a very senior CS (SO1 equivalent). They did no filing (desk officers now had to do that), kept no records, and as a result the PT's filing systems, including airworthiness files, was a thoroughgoing mess.

You join up the dots.

I don't subscribe to the 'it's all rubbish nowadays' view - the staffs are full of exceptionally good officers all doing their best to keep up. But the system needs a thorough 'reset' and 'realign' to get decisions down to the lowest practicable level, and to remove the accumulation of garbage that staff officers are being exposed to. It's making our armed services unaffordable.

How to get there - that's one for the staff.

Best Regards as ever to those shovelling the paperwork

Engines

[Heathrow Harry]

Historically officers who are good in peace time are not what you need when the balloon goes up - the longer it is between major wars the more this is so

looking back most armies/navies/airforces spend the first year of a new conflict retiring/firing (or in the case of the USSR shooting) a very large number of senior officers as they proven to be effectively useless

always amazes me how YOUNG SO's become in a major war.................

[Selatar]

Given that the RAF are just shy of 20 years of continuos bomb dropping ops and the army have also been kept pretty busy 2003 to 2014 one presumes the rapid replacement of senior staffs applies to wars of national survival only?!

[Pontius Navigator]

Engines, I can enter the fray.

When the Army joined the Defence Training Estate they 'captured' the RAF bombing ranges. When AOC 1 Gp found out with less than 2 months to go he was incandescent.

An organization with 5 RAFR Sqn Ldr, and a CoC at 1Gp of a flt lt and sqn ldr suddenly had 3 Lt Col and a train of CS added on, the 1Gp element continued but with no control.

The annual conference became biannual. Attendees rose from 8 to a dozen or more. While the people already existed, the T&S more than tripled.

[Biggus]

Not that long ago one of the in vogue management speak w*#kwords in regular use in the RAF was empowerment, pushing decision making as far down the chain of command as possible - quite ironic when given this discussion about rank creep and that the very opposite of empowerment is occurring.

Requiring a Gp Capts permission to authorise travel costs for internal UK air fares was a good example of the exact opposite of empowerment. Often several forms had to be filled in, I believe Lossie even created its own unique system, and be signed off by various people before finally landing on the main mans desk. All of which took time, and mean that the Easyjet flight that would have cost £40 last week now costs £80 because the flight is tomorrow. Indeed a colleage of mine was once due to leave the base at 1200, and only finally got approval to go at 1000 the same morning!! Madness.

Last example from me, at least in this post. I joined a certain ME fleet in the late 80s. The hierachy consisted of the boss and 4 Flt Cdrs, so 1 x Wg Cdr and 4 x Sqn Ldrs. I returned to the same fleet 10 years later, only to find that the hierachy now consisited of 1 x Wg Cdr and 6 x Sqn Ldrs. The number of personnel was the same (actually slightly less), no more hours were being flown, no new tasks. Everything was pretty much the same as before, and, at least to my eyes, there was no noticeable improvement in the way the Sqn was run.

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, no change there then. ISL decades ago.

On the morning MT refused to provide a vehicle for a run to Buchan. They offered a run to the station but Buchan declined to pick us up from Aberdeen (go figure).

No sqn ldr or wg cdr on sqn, OC AW and Staish both away. Could not get 658 signed. I declined to travel but was ordered by flt lt acting OC. I threatened redress and went- got my golden miles.

[tucumseh]

Well said Engines. You know I agree with you about DGA(N). Especially under Ron Holley.


I shall stick my neck out here and say that I doubt if there is a single technical grade at AbbeyWood today who satisfies the "Grade Description" for his/her grade. Do the Services have a similar "Rank Description"? For example, the direct entrant grade in DE&S (C2, aka HPTO/HSO) is required to have demonstrated the ability to manage 200 staff. For a C1 that is 600. Similarly, a C2 avionic engineer is also required to have managed projects across all disciplines (software, radar, ELINT, nav etc), in every stage of the procurement cycle, before promotion to C1. Step forward anyone in DE&S who satisfies that criteria.

In 1989, IPTLs were HPTO/C2. For many, this would be their 3rd grade as a team leader. In the "new" 1999 model they were typically UG6, 3 grades higher, with smaller teams and less responsibility. As you say, grades have been inflated in certain areas, while ignoring the Grade Descriptions. How many even know they exist!? I know from first hand experience this is one reason why the Treasury have a downer on MoD, as the Descriptions are issued by HMT and all tied to the expected wage bill. Grade inflation means a bigger wage bill, and less for kit. I read recently that this is going to get even worse with new "pay flexibility". That will really p*ss off those in post who find themselves earning >25% less and expected to do their new colleague's job as he hasn't a clue. I don't mind paying more for proven excellence and competence. But at the moment we're talking about paying more for the unproven.

I recall one 39-strong IPT with 15 of them comprising the "Management Board". I imagine someone will beat that ratio!

[alfred_the_great]

shall stick my neck out here and say that I doubt if there is a single technical grade at AbbeyWood today who satisfies the "Grade Description" for his/her grade. Do the Services have a similar "Rank Description"? For example, the direct entrant grade in DE&S (C2, aka HPTO/HSO) is required to have demonstrated the ability to manage 200 staff. For a C1 that is 600. Similarly, a C2 avionic engineer is also required to have managed projects across all disciplines (software, radar, ELINT, nav etc), in every stage of the procurement cycle, before promotion to C1. Step forward anyone in DE&S who satisfies that criteria.

Citation needed for those statements please, because I can't find them. And more to the point, do such descriptions remain valid.....?

[Jimlad1]

No disrespect intended to Tcumsesh, but I think he is utterly wrong on this front. There may well, in the past, have been a requirement to demonstrate you could manage numbers of people, but if it was, it is dead, buried and no longer remotely relevant.

If it helps, I have never, ever, seen any hint of a personnel description of this sort in the last 15 years when it comes to discussing requirements for direct entry. I say this as someone who has a reasonable amount of experience sniffing round HR manuals on promotion and staffing issues.

[Al-bert]

Oh Biggus, the SARFARCE can do better than that!

The hierachy consisted of the boss and 4 Flt Cdrs, so 1 x Wg Cdr and 4 x Sqn Ldrs. I returned to the same fleet 10 years later, only to find that the hierachy now consisited of 1 x Wg Cdr and 6 x Sqn Ldrs. The number of personnel was the same (actually slightly less), no more hours were being flown, no new tasks. Everything was pretty much the same as before, and, at least to my eyes, there was no noticeable improvement in the way the Sqn was run.

that's nothing! Look what happened in SAR Wing, which had bumbled along admirably rescuing people for decades with 1 Wg Cdr in charge, 2 Sqn Ldr Sqn Commanders with nine flights (in total) each commanded by a Flight Lieutenant - plus a Sqn Ldr OC eng and a Jengo. That's what I joined in 1978.

By the time I left it in 1999 the SAR Force was commanded by a Group Captain with a Wg Cdr 2i/c and of course a Wg Cdr OC ENg. The two squadrons, each reduced to three flights, were commanded by Wg Cdrs with a Sqn Ldr 2i/c, and each flight now commanded by a Sqn Ldr Flt Cdr.

And as you found "there was no noticeable improvement in the way the Sqn was run"

No wonder it's being privatised. Amazed it took so long! :ugh:

[Whenurhappy]

Requiring a Gp Capts permission to authorise travel costs for internal UK air fares was a good example of the exact opposite of empowerment. Often several forms had to be filled in, I believe Lossie even created its own unique system, and be signed off by various people before finally landing on the main mans desk. All of which took time, and mean that the Easyjet flight that would have cost £40 last week now costs £80 because the flight is tomorrow. Indeed a colleage of mine was once due to leave the base at 1200, and only finally got approval to go at 1000 the same morning!! Madness.

Ooh! Luxury. In Main Building I think that 2* approval is needed for flights. And don't even think of biscuits and tea or coffee for visitors...

...and completely at odds with the concept of Mission Command.

In a previous tour in overseas, I had to return every few months for a medical check-up at Frimley PArk (half-way between Heathrow and Gatwick). The appointments would be made 3 months beforehand and I would then commence the life-sapping process of getting approvals for flights. ESG would pass it to some Army chap at some random German barracks who would then go 'Oh - MEDEVAC' and book me on a C-17 to...Birmingham. I would then point out that Birmingham was no where near Frimley Park, to which he'd respond 'Get your QM to get a driver and car'. I'd then point out - again - that there were 6 of us here and we didn't have section vehicles nor drivers to get me to the overseas APOE and certainly didn't have the connectivity to dick some unit to drive me from B'ham to Frimley Park. And so it would go on, and as in the quote (above) my flight would be approved a day or two beforehand, BA, and a rental car at the other end - but no subsistence allowance payable! So I was expected to be there and back in a day - given that I had to fast 12 hours beforehand.

[teeteringhead]

Ooh! Luxury. In Main Building I think that 2* approval is needed for flights. Not just MB WUH, it's 2* everywhere.

So to go to London from Scotland, it's easier to take the - more expensive than SqueezyJet, even in "standard" class (oh no sir, no more 1st class!) - train option, cos that can be approved locally! :ugh::ugh:

[tucumseh]

No disrespect intended to Tcumsesh, but I think he is utterly wrong on this front. There may well, in the past, have been a requirement to demonstrate you could manage numbers of people, but if it was, it is dead, buried and no longer remotely relevant.

If it helps, I have never, ever, seen any hint of a personnel description of this sort in the last 15 years when it comes to discussing requirements for direct entry. I say this as someone who has a reasonable amount of experience sniffing round HR manuals on promotion and staffing issues.

Thank you Jim. As stated, the Grade Descriptions I cited are no longer implemented. However, to my knowledge they have not been rescinded. (Like many perfectly good regulations!). I still have my copy because during one audit by the Treasury I was one of those, at my grade (PTO3), selected for assessment. At the time I was what today would be called a Requirements Manager (i.e. something you do before being deemed suitable for promotion into MoD(PE)). I happened to pass, but a few years later, as an HPTO in PE, failed because I had not managed ELINT programmes. Only radar, comms, nav, sonics, EW and software. I could not receive a "Fitted" for promotion until I did at least year on ELINT. Granted, today, that could not be part of the criteria, but I believe we still have some of the others. :mad: Nor, I concede, could be the management of 600, because we don't have many establishments with sufficient numbers! But the principle holds good, that of seeking consistency in any given grade.

Another factor is that, hitherto, staff had to demonstrate to the promotion board the ability to undertake any job at the next grade. That changed to persuading them that, in time, you'd be able to do the post you were applying for. That's a BIG difference.

You are of course correct that this criteria is not, and never has been, deemed relevant to direct entrants. That is my point. The same year I failed was the year the direct entry scheme really took off. Immediately, there was a 2-tier system - and there still is. The difference today is the inexperienced are in the majority. What hasn't changed is they can never attain the competencies required of a non-direct entrant, typically gained at the 5 previous grades (or 6 if you count apprentice). The CS has dumbed down and long ago reached the stage, described by the likes of Engines, where very senior people now do tasks considered routine by older, less senior, colleagues.

In the Services, at any given rank, I always found a high degree of consistency in training, experience and competence. Not so in the CS, especially after about 1990. Servicemen, quite rightly, found it hard to understand why 2 CSs at the same grade could have such vastly different backgrounds. One deemed inexperienced and not quite competent enough because he'd only managed 100 or so projects, in the process having been leader of significant teams; the other deemed experienced and suitable for grade skipping after a couple of years as minutes secretary on a single, minor project.

Look where it led us. That poor sod of an MRA4 "Safety Manager", completely untrained for the job and nothing in his background that would suggest he could be. Named and shamed by H-C, yet the underlying policy, that of bums on seats regardless of suitability, ignored. He wasn't to blame. It was an organisational failure.

[Pheasant]

Engines has hit the nail on the head re rank and number inflation. For the RN the problem really started in the '90s when Jointery reared its ugly head. If I take the Joint Helicopter Command first. When the shape of the HQ was designed the powers that be agreed that the division of posts to the RN, Army and RAF should be proportionate with the RN being allocated 18% of the slots. This equated to about 23 officer posts. This caused a panic in the manpower world of 2SL as e Commando Helo Force at HQ level was run by 3 staff officers, mainly SO2s. The more senior roles were filled by triple hatted officers who also coverered the likes of LYnx, Seaking, Harrier etc. The SAR Force was run, at HQ level, by an SO2. The culprit was the RAF who had something like 52 staff officers running the Support Helo Force.

The advent of JOint Force Harrier was even more amusing. Once again there were very few staff officers to transfer into the new joint organisation. However, it was agreed that the AOC of this Force would be RN (Adm. Henderson). When he arrived at High Wycombe he could not believe the size of the organisation he was taking over and quickly set about reducing the size and introduce some efficiency. It was most definitely an uphill battle. His successor Adm Lidbetter carried on the battle but eventually lost when the RAF "reorganised" their Group structure and disbanded the Admirals Group!

[Engines]

Gentlemen,

While not disagreeing with Pheasant, I'd stress that the issue of 'rank creep' is a truly tri-service one. There's also the issue that 'rank creep' leads to overmanning, as the rigidity of the military rank structures generates extra posts.

Take a job that's being done by an SO2 and (for example) make it an SO1 post, and you will almost always see two SO2 posts appear in the new organisation to justify the SO1 post - 'one on one' rank structures being deemed inefficient. Of course adding an extra SO2 post to shore up a new SO1 post isn't inefficient in the least - as long as you're not the one paying the manpower bills.

As far as JFH went, I can testify to the fact that compared with some of the other FJ staffs at High Wycombe, JFH was a model of 'lean' management. (but still, in my view, overmanned). I can also confirm that keeping it that way was an uphill battle. Every few months, I would be approached by the HQ staffs and asked whether the JFH engineering team required additional SO2s. I always refused, not to 'cut off my nose to spite my face' but because I honestly didn't need any more SO2s.

Good thread, this - come on, let's have some more examples of 'rank creep' from those who are actually doing the business out there.

Best regards as ever to those doing the essential work

Engijnes

[tucumseh]

Jimlad (and Alfred)

I dug out the Grade Descriptions and I have two versions. The latest is after the concept of TG1 and TG2 was introduced, thus creating 2 grades between P/E and PTO (Grade D).

The SPTO description was updated to say "An SPTO (C1) technical manager may have a total staff charge of 200-700". (So my memory wasn't too bad). It differentiates between this type of SPTO post and a "Construction, Maintenance or Servicing" environment were "it would be unusual for numbers supervised to exceed 100-150".

Interestingly, an SEO (also a C1) is very different, merely saying "it is not unusual for a staff charge in excess of 100".

Remember, these are not MoD documents but, as I said, issued by the Treasury and supposed to be used by MoD when grading a new post. Think about it. When you last created a new post in your team, how was it graded? You, or your bosses, must have had some criteria to work to. At a more senior level, someone had to seek authority to increase the staff numbers, and hence the wage bill; and would have to justify both. Who makes that decision and polices correct grading on behalf of the Government? The Treasury. But, as we all know, this is widely ignored and has been for a long time. My point is that, in the Treasury's mind the MoD wage bill should be £X, based on these Grade Descriptions and staff numbers. If posts are inflated then the cost comes out of the overall budget. We aren't just given more money. In practice, what suffers is numbers. As you'll know, Bernard Gray seems to have renegotiated this for the first time in decades and has been granted greater flexibility regarding starting pay for new recruits. Presumably, the Treasury will update these Descriptions, in consultation with Trades Unions. :oh:

[tucumseh]

let's have some more examples of 'rank creep'

On a lighter note, some years ago (early 90s perhaps) a tri-service Rotary Wing policy group beanfest was convened in MB. As usual, leadership / hosting was in rotation and this time it was the RAF, who invited the Army head of aviation (probably a Staff Sergeant) and the RN's Director General Aircraft (Navy), who would also represent the RM (whose RW support policy tends to revolve around nicking kit from whoever isn't looking).

However, the Rear Admiral's Technical Advisor (Captain) knew his new boss was V busy, had a look at the agenda and asked who knew most about the items. The answer was a civilian PTO (Grade D) - as you'd expect actually - and he was sent off to London.

The PTO quickly realised everyone was in civvies and the other Services hadn't a clue who to expect from the RN, so just assumed he was a senior RN officer, if not the new Admiral. He kept quiet. The RAF 2 Star started with a good old moan about SAR avionics support. The DGA(N) reply went along the lines of "What do you expect when your maintenace policy relies on an RN establishment that closed 10 years ago". This went on for a while and eventually the RN was invited to give a presentation on the detailed support issues, where of course the Devil lies. At the end, while quaffing vino collapso, he was praised on remembering so much from what must have been many promotions ago. He replied no, in a few weeks my tour ends and I return to being a diag on the sonics bench at Fleetlands. Priceless. They took it in good part and the Admiral received a nice letter of commendation from the Junior services. But wasn't overly pleased that some junior..........

[kintyred]

Interesting to note that the first page of this thread was almost entirely against the OP. What a difference a few pages makes!

[Mickj3]

Nothing to do with the topic (I wonder) but I really couldn't resist this.

Elementary
Oxford University researchers have discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass. When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

[minigundiplomat]

I can't wait for Easter - I have little doubt that Pheasant will tell us how the RAF nailed Jesus to the cross whilst shooting JFK and causing the recession.

[Not_a_boffin]

Stop trying to brush these things under the carpet. You forgot the Black Death, Great Fire of London and Great Depression as well........

[Pheasant]

Mini, I am sure things re number of staff officers are different now but they weren't back in the late '90s. The RAF was vastly overmanned compared to the RN. However, the real issue is that Jointery can increase the rank loading on a Service rather than reduce it. The MAA is another case in point - what is the size of this 3* led organisation compared to what went before? I am not debating its necessity just the manpower burden it has imposed on Defence.

[Wrathmonk]

The MAA is another case in point - what is the size of this 3* led organisation compared to what went before? I am not debating its necessity just the manpower burden it has imposed on Defence.

Too late - you've mentioned it now.

PPRuNe is becoming like the "Six Degrees of Separation" in that, however random a thread may be on the Military Aviation Board, it will mention MAA or airworthiness within 6 pages!:E:E:E

Edit to add - bu88er - just noticed this thread has slipped into page 7....:mad::ugh:

[downsizer]

WM

Depends on your browser settings, its page 6 here :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Wrath, not to mention the Nimrod replacement
. .

[Engines]

Guys,

I don't want to join in any MAA bashing - there are plenty of threads for that. But Pheasant's post raises a good point about the tendency to throw numbers of people at an issue, generate jobs, and the 'service politics' angle.

The MAA is now a very substantial organisation. That's due in large part to the original decision to make it headed by a three-star, so as to signify the importance of what we now call 'air safety'. (By the way, overall defence safety managed fine with a two star lead for years, and the excellent naval nuclear safety record was due to a well managed team led by a one star).

But three star it was, and so a large pyramid has been created to justify and feed the resulting two and one star posts. The 'ripple down' effect was clearly shown in the AAIU, where the outstanding RN AIU (commended by Haddon-Cave), which was headed for many, many years by a suitably experienced and trained (I will not use the 'SQEP' 'word') SO2, became the MAAIB, which now apparently required a full Colonel to head it up. Plus other SO1s and SO2s. Oh, and the Colonel (plus many of the new SO1s and SO2s) had zero practical experience of accident investigation.

But there is more. The MAA was formed in large part by 'sweeping up' as many experienced DE&S staffs as possible. Unfortunately, that led to a massive gap in DE&S's ability to manage its own air safety issues. So, presto, the DE&S (Defence?) Airworthiness Team (DAT) was formed. The Deputy Head is a Group Captain, so that makes the head CS approximately a one star. DAT apparently exists to:

Provide help to Project Teams and Operating Centres in DE&S manage airworthiness
Drive consistency and good practice across the DE&S
Provide confidence to CoM(Air) that the organisation is doing so

A one star. To head a support department. See the problem? By the way, I have absolutely no doubt that the people in the DAT are working their bums off - but I'll take a decent bet that a lot of the 'stuff' is firmly of the 'self licking lollipop' sort. It's not the fault of the SO1s and below.

This is my last input to this thread - I just hope that somewhere, someone is reading this and using the examples we've all highlighted to take a sharp sword to the MoD's staff organisations.

Best regards as ever to those SO2s and SO1s doing real jobs,

Engines