Armed forces face radical changes under Lord Levene plans

[chinook240]

Just when I thought I could make it to the top:

Armed forces face radical changes under Lord Levene plans | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/27/armed-forces-face-radical-change)

[MG]

You and me both!
Actually, this report looks promising and long overdue. Not so sure about all, such as only one military person (CDS) on the board but I do like the principle.

[Pontius Navigator]

Buggins won't be pleased.

It will also mean that the box chart for promotion will have to be reprinted. To get to the top you need to have your ticket punched with the right ticks in the boxes.

What new boxes will be added to satisfy the appointments board? What old ones will be removed?

[Mr Grim]

Under his current plans, Levene and his team have suggested:
• Thinning the ranks at the very top of the military. At the moment each service has, effectively, two chiefs – one responsible for strategy and management, the other for operations. Levene believes that there should only be one chief for each arm. Under this model, operational control would be pushed down the chain of command from a four star rank to a three star.
VERY GOOD

• Establishing a new appointments committee that would be responsible for choosing the highest ranking officers in the army, RAF and the Royal Navy. The committee would be chaired by a non-executive director, chosen by the defence secretary. At the moment, the services make most mid-ranking and senior appointments in-house.
GOOD

• Creating a new defence board that will have only one member of the military sitting on it. This would be the overall chief of the defence staff, currently General Sir David Richards. At the moment, chiefs from all three services sit on the board.
VERY BAD

• Getting rid of many of the other minor boards that are responsible for managing different projects. In their place, individuals would be appointed to run them, and be held accountable for delays or overspending. This would cut down on bureaucracy and save money.
VERY GOOD

• Extending the time that some officials spend in posts at MoD headquarters from two to four years. This could provide greater continuity, particularly in important areas of procurement and strategic planning.
VERY GOOD

IMHO, ofc!

[MG]

Mr Grim
Sums up my thoughts perfectly! I would hope that there won't be too much in the way of push-back for this. That's until the Daily Mail gets involved. :rolleyes:
(What's ofc?)

[Mr C Hinecap]

Getting rid of many of the other minor boards that are responsible for managing different projects. In their place, individuals would be appointed to run them, and be held accountable for delays or overspending. This would cut down on bureaucracy and save money.
VERY GOOD

Potentially fantastic! The only thing worse than a project designed by committee is a project being run by committee then nibbled to death by committee - usually the committee is so devolved from actually using the equipment as well.

[Biggus]

How long does the average project run for...?

How long is the average military posting (I know 4 yrs for procurement postings was suggested)...?




If a project lasts longer than the posting, then does human nature ensure that the person in post tries to minimise/obscure/hide any information on delays and overspend so that his/her report does not suffer, and it is the successor that eventually carries the can? Is it the fault of somebody incoming to a project if they pick up a poisoned chalice?





Having said all that - any thinning of Senior Officers can only be a good thing in my opinion!

[chinook240]

any thinning of Senior Officers can only be a good thing in my opinion!

Unless you want to get promoted!

[reds & greens]

Oh well, just to add my £0.02, from the perspective of a lowly bottom feeder... YEHAA ! - about time the seniors felt the pinch.

[heights good]

"Unless you want to get promoted!"

Well, be better then :E

[Low Flier]

Does this mean that there will be fewer Group(sic) Captains than operational aircraft in the RAF and fewer Admirals than warships in the navy?

If so, bring it on!

[minigundiplomat]

Thats not many Admirals then!

[Jimlad1]

Potentially some very good ideas there, the devil is in the detail though. I am curious about the new look Defence board - I wonder who much smaller it will be - I'm guessing SofS, CDS, PUS, plus potentially CDM, and one or two others?

Personally I dont have much time for the 'more admirals than ships' argument - the RN has roughly 35,000 people and about 35 Admirals (including those in joint postings). A 1:1000 ratio of Admiral to mere mortals doesnt seem to bad to me - anyone know how it compares to the private sector?

[Whenurhappy]

Fewer boards is not necessarily a good thing unless more decision-making and therefore control of resources is cascaded down. Considering that the decision on overseas travel now rests at 2* for the next 4 years, I'm not hopeful that this proposal would work.

Project management vested in one person effectively exists now with SROs and any proposal would have to be compliant with the NAO; the problem is that previous reviews of procurement have tried to compare us with, say, the NHS or with the private sector - neither of which is a just comparison.

[GreenKnight121]

USN (as of 27 May 2011):
# of "deployable battle force ships" = 286

# of acdu Admirals of all ranks* = 304, with another 24 selected for Rear Admiral (when a slot opens up) [this is the number of names on the biography list cited below]

# of acdu USN officers = ~52,581

# of acdu USN personnel = 328,051

Thus, the USN has 1 active duty Admiral (of all ranks) for each 1,079 overall personnel.

Status of the Navy (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146)

US Navy Leadership (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio_list.asp)

United States Code: Title 10,526. Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000526----000-.html)


* this number varies, as it is very dependent on how many Admirals are in "joint-duty" postings.

US code title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 32, section 526 limits the USN to 160 active duty flag officers... but then exempts all flag officers serving in joint-duty, and sets a minimum number of 61 such active duty flag officers, for a minimum USN Admiral establishment of 221.



Of course, they serve in such vital positions as:
Rear Admiral Philip S. Davidson; Senior Military Advisor to the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan