Top heavy military

[NutLoose]

It looks like the press are finally cottoning on to the facts.

Sky Views: Too few ships and too many admirals? (http://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-too-few-ships-and-too-many-admirals-10672327)

[Pontius Navigator]

The corollary therefore is what are the new posts?

[Heathrow Harry]

from the artcle:-

I should say that I've gone back only as far as the 2010 SDSR. That seemed a sensible junction to me, because that was the moment the UK's Armed Forces were dramatically cut in size to fill a £38 billion budget black hole. I wanted to examine the effect those cuts in manpower have had on the most senior ranks.According to October's Personnel report, the current size of the Army is 84,490 (down from 106,000 in 2011), Royal Navy 32,500 (down from 37,660) and Royal Air Force 33,270 (down from 42,460).


For what it's worth the total size of Britain's military in 2011 was 180,000 and is now 150,250.
This is where it starts to get interesting.

In 2011, just after that brutal SDSR and before the cuts really started to dig in, there were 32 Admirals, 58 Generals and 37 Air Marshals.
In the five years since, the Army has shrunk by 20.2%, the RAF by 21.6% and the Navy is 13.7% smaller.
It would therefore be reasonable to expect the number of senior officers to have followed a similar pattern, wouldn't it?

Today, there are 36 Admirals (+4), 57 Generals (-1) and 37 Air Marshals (no change). So on paper, as the three forces have dwindled considerably in manpower size, the number of top officers haven't.

So where has the shrinkage occurred? I carried out the same exercise, but amongst the lower ranks.

In the same five years, the total number of junior ranks has shrunk in all three services - in the Navy by 15%, the Army by 22% and the RAF by 21%.
That is broadly in line with the overall reduction - the kind of pattern you'd expect to see, but a completely different story to that at the top of the food chain.
In fairness the figures are a little harsh on the Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals. What they can't show is the soft power and leadership those men (and with just three exceptions, they are only men) deliver around the world.

That is harder to quantify, making the raw data rather clumsy and only part of the picture. But perception is everything.

I have met many of the top brass and some of them are truly impressive, but for the number of Admirals to have increased whilst the overall size of the Navy has decreased, well that's really not cool.

[Heathrow Harry]

The RN in 1812 had around 200 Admirals and approx 130-140 ships of the line

[Pontius Navigator]

HH, on full pay?

Interestingly the manning pyramid has one admiral/air marshal per 900 men.

I wonder how many VSO deliver hard power as opposed to the soft power alluded to above?

[BEagle]

Certainly in the RAF, quite a few of the lower rank posts have gone because of the creeping cancer of contractorisation and the greater number of reservists, including FTRS :hmm:.... Although there are currently 6 UASs still trying to recruit reservist QFIs, so the reservist job seems to be decreasing in appeal.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind....:rolleyes:

But contractorisation isn't an option at Air Rank, so it's hardly surprising that the ratio seems skewed.

[Hangarshuffle]

2016 highest pay scale for a RN Commodore is 101-105k GBP pa. Couldn't see an admirals. What are they on pay wise?
What is it that irritates people about this (all these Admirals)? The pay? Its not that good in real terms.
What does a head-teacher at a school earn?
To put things into relative scale, a UK offshore welder can earn 90k pa, an electrician also. Don't know what an offshore pilots on. An OIM/ Sea Captain are on very good money usually tax free. What's a top cop on?
Not my job to defend Admirals because I don't really like them (I wish they had defended my pay in 2000 AD) but there's a lot of jealousy apparent sometimes.

[charliegolf]

What does a head-teacher at a school earn?

Very many secondary heads on >£100k, whilst I retired in 2012 from a 200 pupil primary on £62k. Seventeen years seniority. A small school primary head could be on as little as £50K.

But there again if you sack 20 or 30 admirals, how many new grey boats can you buy? None.

CG

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius - no I don't think so - but on the active list so available - I think there were another 30-40 who retained the title but were officialy "past it/gaga/injured"

[Heathrow Harry]

"there again if you sack 20 or 30 admirals, how many new grey boats can you buy? None."

but we might get the one's we CAN afford a bit faster.............

It always struck me how, when a major war breaks out, within about two years a whole herd of SO's are terminated and the average age of commanders falls by about 15 years.....

[Just This Once...]

It would be interesting to see true manning pyramids. I have done tours where the total number of RAF under my command has varied from around 100 to zero. When at 'zero' I have had extremes of truly no staff to high numbers of RN, Army, foreign military, civil servants, civilian specialists and civilian contractors to organise/lead/manage/herd/report on. In one extreme I also had POWs to look after.

The simplistic view that officers are only there to lead personnel of their own service is just not valid these days, if it ever was at all.

[Jimlad1]

Threads like this really annoy me and seem based on ignorance and prejudice, not any factual arguments.

Lets break it down a bit - there are today approximately 30-35 Admirals/RM Generals in the Naval Service against a total manpower of roughly 32,500 regulars (Trained and untrained) and about 3000 reservists, 1500 RFA and 1000 civilians in NAVY Command. So roughly 38,000 people. That means that the total 2* and above contingent is a total of 0.1% of the entire Naval Service.

If you add in all the Captains, Commodores and Admirals together, then you have roughly 400 people - or approximately 1% of the Naval Service at the top 5 of 10 ranks in the Officer Corps. Thats not that many people.

In the RN the Admirals are split roughly 3 ways - you have about a third of them running 'Navy' Jobs - so Fleet commander & deputy, 2SL, NAVSEC, FOST, Ops/FOSM/FOSNNI (1 post for 3 hats) etc. That means roughly 10 Admirals look after the Naval Service of 38,000 people.

You then have another 10 or so in so-called purple appointments, that are rotational and filled by all three services - for instance Main Building posts, JFC posts (next CJO will be an RN 3*), or procurement roles.

Finally you have the NATO / exchange / Other posts which fill the balance - for example we provide senior military personnel in Naples (or did) or the old CINCLANT deputy job.

There are several things to note -firstly, a lot of posts are subtly downgraded -25 years ago the RN had 4 x 4* in its regular scheme (1SL, FLEET, 2SL, CINCVAHOME), plus rotational 4* posts in the HQs and elsewhere. Today it has 1 permanent 4* (1SL) and the VCDS post. Many posts are downgraded from 3*-2* or 1*-OF5 (for instance Captains now command shore schools that used to be run by Cdres).

The second point is that these posts exist because the military is a hierachy and needs people to command. If you start downsizing too much, you both squash the promotion ladder (e.g. make all Capts - Commander jobs) and delay promotion, leading to good people leaving, or you need to do what other countries do and create an interim SO1 rank (many European Navies have a 'senior Commander' post with 3.5 stripes).

You need to offer a credible career to keep people in, you need line management chain hierachies for reporting purposes, and you need someone senior enough to actually run things. What this does mean is that most 1* and above are seriously busy people. Many of them have 2 or 3 'caps' to wear that involves their time and effort and means their days are long (most Admirals I've met are in very early, home very late and working solidly 5 days a week with work on the weekend a regular issue too). Its not an easy life of gin and uckers.

Secondly the supposed 'benefits' that some people think they get don't exist. Most Cdres get an MA or PS at best, and no car/driver/residence. A tiny number of these posts attract a retinue (I think from memory it is 1SL, FLEET Cdr and possibly one or two others) mainly because the sheer amount of travel and hosting required means its better to have a professional do it and keep the show on the road. This is backed up by a Flag Lt and an MA at 2* level (but again no driver for the most part). I know friends in the commercial sector who are genuinely shocked at the paucity of perks for our most senior people, and how hard they are worked in return.

Finally, there is a real problem of what posts do you want to stop being Admiral posts and why? To downgrade a post means all manner of implications, some legal, some reputational, some making it harder to get access in future for engagement purposes etc. Every time this post comes up and I ask "Which specific 2* and above posts do you want to downgrade and why" the answer is always to the effect of "Dont know, but we have too many".

I would argue that we actually probably have too few 2* and above. This means their workload is too great, their ability to focus on deep issues and lead on them and take a decision is reduced, and if they are away on travel, then it can take a long time to get things done. I would personally suggest the RN would benefit from over time adding a couple more 2* posts, primarily to ease the burden and allow better leadership. Cutting for the sake of form does not always make a better organisation.

[anson harris]

I know friends in the commercial sector who are genuinely shocked at the paucity of perks
Perhaps the shock might wear off a little when they check the pension terms or even the revolving door into cheers-easy defence boardroom jobs, post retirement.

[SirToppamHat]

Jim Lad

Sitting (physically) closer to the higher echelons of the RAF than I have in previous years, I would have to say that your description applies pretty well to the RAF. With the advent of DII and mostly open calendars, the facts are there for anyone with a DII account to see.

What I don't quite understand is how the pay and pensions of our senior leaders are calculated. Are they still paid full wack on retirement? 80%? Or are those days long gone?

STH

[Just This Once...]

They have never been pensioned on full salary and not sure where that tall tale originated. Their pension has always been pretty similar to everyone else's but tweaked to reflect their appointment salary and the rather quick exit if they don't get a subsequent post. The revised pension and tax rules have taken quite a bit of gilt off the senior salaries pension scheme.

[Pontius Navigator]

Some posts, from S02 upwards are based on treaty equivalent ranks - ie a job done by a flt lt RAF or matched by major in some other national forces. At VSO level 2* is needed to fill a treaty 2* billet - some on rotation some because that post is always held by a Brit and needs that rank.

[Jimlad1]

Sir Topham Hat - I think the rumour about the 100% salary extended to the tiny number of people who held/hold 5* rank. In the old days tradition had it that 5* officers remained on the active list for life and as such retained full pay. But, there was an expectation that you remain available for State and other duties too. I think the numbers of 5*s left must be barely 20 by now, if that, and they'll all be gone within 20 years.

These days when you retire you receive a pension and nothing else.

[Union Jack]

These days when you retire you receive a pension and nothing else.

This link may be helpful, assuming of course that this is the latest info available:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28062/SeniorOfficersPensionBenefitsAFPS75.pdf

Jack

[glad rag]

Threads like this really annoy me and seem based on ignorance and prejudice, not any factual arguments.

Uhuh.


Bit difficult to defend though when there are neither enough (or completely the wrong type) boats, ships or sailors to do the job(s) properly...still if you fancy a 3 month football refereeing course then a drafting to HMQE is the place to be...

[Pontius Navigator]

What annoys and beggars belief is council chief executives that manage a district council who are paid more than the prime minister who must manage the whole country.

If your 2 or 3 star makes a wrong decision hundreds may die and he may face an international court etc

[MPN11]

Jersey's Chief Civil Servant gets over £200k ... for an Island with 100k population ;)

[Parson]

Too many ranks is the problem

[Pontius Navigator]

Parson, in addition to my early comment that many ranks are set against international rank structures. One example was our down ranking of DVD from 5* to 4* as US Forces only appoint a 5* in wartime.

What rank would you abolish? IMHO Colonel, Air Cdre and Cdre might be considered redundant. And 2* and 3* might be merged?

[Mos Eisely]

The Annual Compendium of RAF Manpower Statistics 2016 released by the Government Statistical Service:

RAF Trained Regular Officers

Wg Cdr
Liability 920
Strength 980
Surplus 60 (7%)

Gp Capt
Liability 210
Strength 300
Surplus 90 (42%)

Air Cdre & Above
Liability 70
Strength 110
Surplus 40 (64%)

That's 190 more Senior Officers more that the RAF needs whilst the majority of the remaining manpower is in deficit.

[Underbolt]

Did you mean Brigadier, Air Cdre and Cdre?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Too many ranks is the problem

OK, I'm intrigued - why is that?

[Heathrow Harry]

Historic - we have a rank structure that goes back to WW2 when the RAF was much much bigger - and had fewer SO's as well

[Pontius Navigator]

Underbolt, no I didn't.

[MPN11]

Interesting numbers, Mos Eisely ... and welcome aboard!

I wonder what all those 'surplus' officers do to pass the time?

[4everAD]

Interesting numbers, Mos Eisely ... and welcome aboard!

I wonder what all those 'surplus' officers do to pass the time?

Make up compulsory objectives for OJARS and SJARS?

[Parson]

PN, Roland

Taking the air force as an example and looking at, say, the reduction in manpower since 1990, it is hard to justify having the same number of commissioned ranks. And as H Harry says, if you go back to WW2, when the rank structure was the same as today, it is even harder to justify. I'd say an air rank and Gp Capt could go.

[Hangarshuffle]

I've just been watching C4 news and I'm sure I saw that the average CEO or CM gets the equivalent of the total sum of 43 of his company employees salary.
So even in the worst possible scenario I don't think our Admirals cop that much.

Britain has problems but its wrong for the press or others to suddenly blame our Admirals as some sort of out of touch overpaid elite.

[Pontius Navigator]

The heads of the RAAF and RCAF are 3*, RNZAF and RNoAF are 2*

DSACEUR and DSACLANT are both British 3*

So your point is valid in that smaller air forces have lower ranked heads but for international comparison, as Britain holds high level international posts it needs more stars.

[Hangarshuffle]

Its all just another sign of discontent with an elite, and this will continue for a long while yet. People are trying to drag the military (in this case the Navy) into it. Or conversely its an agitator suddenly trying to place the Naval High Command alongside a very highly paid corporate elite to covey some sort of brotherhood, who knows in this era of false news and the rest of it?

[DaveUnwin]

Do we really need an Admiral for every ship? That ratio doesn't look quite right. Also, do we really have more Wing Commanders than combat aircraft?

[Easy Street]

do we really have more Wing Commanders than combat aircraft?

< select one role among the many undertaken by the RAF >
< select a rank with more individuals than there are aircraft in aforementioned role >
< confect outrage >

Do we really have more air marshals than wide area land surveillance platforms? :ugh:

[Mos Eisely]

Does the RAF really have 190 surplus senior officers!

[Jimlad1]

Personally I am outraged at the fact we have several thousand Able Seaman - there must be hundreds for every ship.

[Not_a_boffin]

Now look, you're going to get in trouble with the equality and diversity police. Surely the use of the term "able" is discriminatory - as is the use of the term seaman.

Obviously a new rank of "neutrally abled sea (or land) person" is required.

[Wander00]

averagely abled seaperson??

[Pontius Navigator]

But as some do not serve at sea should they be called landperson, or perhaps soildier?

[DaveUnwin]

Easy Street I'm not outraged - just baffled. Do we really have more Wing Commanders than (forget the combat bit) aircraft?

[Easy Street]

If my calculations are correct the RAF has almost exactly the same number of wing commanders as it does aircraft. It would have more aircraft than wing commanders were it not for the current surplus of the latter. So what? We have more AVMs than groups. We have more air commodores than stations. Pick any resource of which the RAF has fewer than any given rank and be baffled by it if you wish, but it is a meaningless analysis unless you indicate how you think the numbers should be related. Let me try quickly: a flying station with one squadron will have wing commanders in charge of the squadron, Ops Wg, Base Support Wg, Eng and Logs Wg, and there will probably be two in the medical and dental centres. So we're at 6 wing commanders before we even go off-station, into places like the engineering project team (probably at least two wing commanders per aircraft type), the Group staff (another one), the Capability staff (another one)... and this is before we even start considering places like operational headquarters, the MOD, deployed posts and the diplomatic network. And, of course, the fifty or so newly-promoted wing commanders doing their year-long staff college course.

Suggest some posts for deletion; I'm sure the MoD's financial scrutineers would take them away in a heartbeat if they could.

[MSOCS]

Easy Street, I think Dave would prefer to see high responsibility, non-flying jobs, relegated to lower ranks where their lack of relative experience and clout renders them impotent to make decisions with authority, credibility and confidence.

Some folk really believe that just numbers of airframes are the benchmark of what we do?!!!

Last I heard, the Army has more Generals than Ajax AFVs. Hold the front page, I'm baffled!!!!!

[glad rag]

"Some folk really believe that just numbers of airframes are the benchmark of what we do?!!!"

Unless Lockheed Martin (you remember them msocs) can do otherwise, YES actually!!!

[Thud105]

I have to agree with glad rag - surely the whole point of the military is (for example) to use some ships to land some tanks while being covered by aircraft. Having lots of generals, admirals and air marshals all sitting around talking isn't really what the military's about (or maybe it is these days?)
I share Dave Unwin's bafflement. Can you really justify having a wing commander for each aircraft? Surely the clue's in the rank?

[Wander00]

should be two "wing" commanders for each aircraft, oh, perhaps not.........

[Pontius Navigator]

I do know where one wg cdr had part of his job taken over by 3 lt col. The HQ burden down hill trebled and annual meetings became quarterly at one level and at the next doubled.

[Jimlad1]

Look at how many flight sgts we have relative to airframes. Total bloody disgrace if you ask me :E

[Wander00]

PN - sounds about the right proportion --stand by for incoming....aargh

[MPN11]

The lt col who worked for me seemed to spend most of his time filing travel claims for the 53p bus fare to see someone in a different MoD building in Central London. So a 3:1 ratio seems reasonable.

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN 11, ours insisted on vetting our planned expenditure to attend the quarterly meeting he had called.

His finance officer would return the approval and then would chase up copies of our duly filed claim.

As I filed my claim on line and she had access to the system I declined to comply. Another occasion she sent me a 2nd class rail warrant on the basis t2that the colonel travelled 2nd. I just paid and claimed the upgrade. Never any come back which reinforced my opinion of the waste.

[Red Line Entry]

Thud,

Have a read of 'How Defence Works'

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484941/20151208HowDefenceWorksV4_2.pdf

And then consider how many people it needs to do all of the tasks necessary to end up with those ships, tanks and aircraft in the right place. Amazingly enough, all those generals, admirals and air marshals are not just sitting around!

[Thud105]

The two posts directly above yours have already given me a flavor of how UK defence works!
But seriously I know all that. The point that baffles some of us is that you used to have a lot more ships, tanks and airplanes than you do now, yet although you now have less ships, tanks and airplanes, you have more senior officers:rolleyes:

[MACH2NUMBER]

RLE,
I agree entirely. Although I spent most of my career as a fighter pilot, I later had to turn my hand to a myriad of other tasks. Controlling huge budgets, expensive aviation upgrades etc. The comparison with rank and equipment numbers is very shallow, but populist. We need many other skills to achieve the military task.Lets face it, although the pension benefits are good, what you have to endure in terms of responsibility, family disruption and often very real danger are streets and away ahead of our other public services and their pensions and benefits, which are much larger. Other less sympathetic readers might like to divert their attention on them.

[Red Line Entry]

Thud,

Year Officers of 2 star and up .... All Officers........................Other Ranks (ORs)

1975.....254....100%................ 46979.....100%...............295542..... 100%
2000.....150....59%.................. 32516.....69%.................175099..... 59%
2014.....130....51%.................. 27850.....59% ................131770..... 45%

So, no, we do not have more senior officers, we have fewer. Moreover, look at the way society now expects the military to take responsibility for things which, to be frank, we previously did little about: Health & Safety, Airworthiness, Training to mandated SQEP levels (outside war roles), PR, IT, Environment, to name but a few.

On top of this, senior management levels have reduced to a greater extent than officers as a whole. Not as much as ORs, I admit, but many of those roles have been taken by contractors, the contracts of whom require oversight and management.

In sum, the cry that we 'have more admirals than ships' invariably comes from those who have no idea what the modern business of defence really entails. Last week, I spoke to a one star officer who is responsible and accountable for almost £900M of spend per year. How much would you pay someone in civvy street for such responsibility? Probably more than the £100K per annum that this individual gets. And whoever did the job would probably not spend the 60 hour week that my colleague does every week. So why don't we use remuneration as a better yardstick for measuring value for money from our military leaders?

Thomas Buberl is the Chief Executive of AXA, a company of 160,000 employees, roughly the same size as the British military. He gets around £2.5M per year. ACM Stu Peach, CDS, gets one tenth of that, while he himself gets over £50,000 more than the next most senior military officer (ignoring medical specialists). So if you think military leadership is expensive...see a doctor!

References:

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518130/1027-WL-38th_Annual_Rpt_Sen_Sal_2016_Accessible_.pdf

[NutLoose]

The trouble there is you are comparing military to civilian companies who answer to their shareholders and their renumeration is profit based and not the civil service.

[Red Line Entry]

So? Do you not think that the skills required to run the British Military, ensuring the defence of this country in a volatile political and global climate, while balancing a £35Bn budget comprising projects that can take 20 years to go from concept to operations is not as challenging as creating shareholder value??

[Thud105]

RLE and others, I know why you're reluctant to answer my question - but I'll try one more time. Your data suggests that you have approx 50% fewer 2stars than you did in 1975. I accept that, but I'd be prepared to bet a considerable amount of money that the amount of airplanes you have has reduced by a lot more than 50% over the same time period.
True, or false?

[Jimlad1]

The airframes may reduce, but the overarching roles and responsibilities most certainly have not. We could stop doing operations, logistics, manpower planning, engineering support, intelligence, training etc and save lots of 1* and above posts, but I think the effects may be substantial.

Just because you have less kit, does not mean you can switch off the underpinning J1-9 issues that need to be done.

Perhaps a better question is if people think there are too many 2* posts, perhaps they can specifically name posts that they think can safely be gotten rid of? My experience is that lots of people moan, few people ever come up with specifics. I wonder why...

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

"Overarching" and "underpinning" in one post! Well done, Sir! I salute you! :p