Defence Board Civilianised (More or less) - merged
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Defence Board Civilianised (More or less) - merged
UK Government announces that the Sea, Land and Air chiefs of staff will no longer sit on the Defence Board. The only military man on the board will be Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). CDS is a political appointment and so the entire Defence Board will be made up of politicians and civil servants. Will this improve the already precarious position of the UK Defence Forces?
Last edited by SOSL; 27th Jun 2011 at 16:37. Reason: sp
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the slightest....we have now lost most of the difference between the MOD's constitution and that of other ministries delivering professional services. It's symptomatic of the era though where few understand the difference that is the military.....the civil service has for years tried to marginalise the uniformed input at any rank level....as has the Treasury...and we have done ourselves few favours by increasingly going native and not always doing the job we were really put in there to do....especially at the highest rank levels IMO...it also allows the politicians like Dave to minimise the effect of the single service chiefs when issues like MRA4 need decisions...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more importantly, it paves the way to the abolition of the single-service chiefs-of-staff so that CinC Land, Air and Fleet (also 4*s) will become the heads of their respective Services.
LFFC,
I'd go one further and abolish the individual Service heads and make the CinC Fleet, LF and Air all 3* appointments and de facto head of Service. We may have the 4th largest budget to spend but as we use a huge chunk of the procurement slice acting as a "Benefits System" for British industry our projected size only requires two 4* posts - CDS and a newly advanced CJO (removing at a stroke the ridiculous notion that a 3* has to "ask" a series of 4* officers to commit FE@R to support ops). A commensurate cull of the "enrichment" 1*s and the winnowing of the 2* cadre will produce both savings and open up the prospect of keeping the promotion system alive during the next few years.
I'd go one further and abolish the individual Service heads and make the CinC Fleet, LF and Air all 3* appointments and de facto head of Service. We may have the 4th largest budget to spend but as we use a huge chunk of the procurement slice acting as a "Benefits System" for British industry our projected size only requires two 4* posts - CDS and a newly advanced CJO (removing at a stroke the ridiculous notion that a 3* has to "ask" a series of 4* officers to commit FE@R to support ops). A commensurate cull of the "enrichment" 1*s and the winnowing of the 2* cadre will produce both savings and open up the prospect of keeping the promotion system alive during the next few years.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bye bye 4 stars
BBC report that the individual heads of Service will no longer have a seat at the top table. Good thing or the final nail in the military coffin, sorry covenant!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah - it looks like it will happen that way!
MoD and armed forces shakeup – in detail
....and there goes your "enrichment" 1* posts! Four to five-years posts of course means that the number of senior rank levels must reduce by at least 2 so that it is possible to get to the very top before retirement! All very cunning really.
MoD and armed forces shakeup – in detail
This means that "the service chiefs will no longer need a four-star commander-in-chief" to have alongside them. Levene says that because service chiefs will be less involved in strategy, there is also no need for them to be based at the MoD headquarters in Whitehall. Instead, they should relocate to their individual service headquarters.
.
.
This is one of Levene's core recommendations: that a new JFC should be created and headed by a "military four-star" – the second highest rank possible – who reports directly to the chief of the defence staff.
.
.
This is one of Levene's core recommendations: that a new JFC should be created and headed by a "military four-star" – the second highest rank possible – who reports directly to the chief of the defence staff.
He says that the days of senior personnel being in post for a short period must end – recommending that a four-year to five-year posting is appropriate, rather than a two-year one.
A commensurate cull of the "enrichment" 1*s and the winnowing of the 2* cadre will produce both savings and open up the prospect of keeping the promotion system alive during the next few years.
And completely agree with BomberH. Where are the commensurate reductions in MOD civil service star count? I can nominate a few that would be worthy of culling!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it was announced that they were removing the heads of the Armed Forces, I thought personally, that was well over the top!
Mind you, the top will be lower without heads!
Wonder where it ends . . .
Mind you, the top will be lower without heads!
Wonder where it ends . . .
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget all the bureaucracy.
We'd transform defence by asking the operators what equipment they want, suggesting the art of the possible and procuring it in a sensible timescale before it becomes obsolescent during development.
What I'm missing is how removing the military from the decision chain helps that aspiration.
We'd transform defence by asking the operators what equipment they want, suggesting the art of the possible and procuring it in a sensible timescale before it becomes obsolescent during development.
What I'm missing is how removing the military from the decision chain helps that aspiration.
Or you could all read the actual report, stop worry about those CS who seem to be the devil incarnate, and then discuss from an informed view point. Frankly the report sounds remarkably sensible to me.
DRU
edit to add link
2nd edit the link HTML tag was wrong
DRU
edit to add link
2nd edit the link HTML tag was wrong
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Load of Bollocks!
The DRU report seems like a load of bollocks to me. Then, what would I know. It's very easy to write recommendations, and write, then write more, and then write some more. These seem to me mostly trival words, designed to satisfy politicians. I don't see much about the important part of defence, i.e. those that actually do the job - the soldiers, airmen and navy dudes. It's mostly about the staff in 'Puzzle Palace', and other centres of excellence! What about what matters - the sharp end. Any critque of the value of this report would be appreciated, because I'm struggling at the moment to understand its purpose. Will it improve anything? Or, more to the point, wil it make things worse?
Defence - a game of two halves?
When the DRU recommendations are implemented Defence UK will inexorably slide towards a two-team race as is the model in many countries. There will be the MOD – largely civilian staffed, that covers inter alia strategy, policy, procurement and budget and the Armed Forces (let’s call them UKDF) - who, err, do the fighting. Certainly, there will be little need for a rash of 4* at the top – one per service, who could be called, hmmm, let’s see….CinC Air, for example. The paradox in this model which will exist in practise, if not name, is that the single-service chiefs won’t have much discretion in the use of their budgets, as effectively they will only cover salaries and other operating costs – in spite of what Lord Levene has desired. Procurement will remain centralised and funds bid for accordingly across the Department(s). Ironically, a HQ UKDF will be required to coordinate the peacetime activities of the forces – whereas the enhanced PJHQ will be primus inter pares.
Moreover, the single Services will have less say on MOD decisions on, for example, tri-service personnel matters, (employment models, TACOS, pay award levels, policy on housing, schooling etc) and there will be fewer service personnel in the MOD to apply the handbrake to even more vindictive policies thought up by an increasingly politicised civil service, where individuals are ‘incentivised’ to make greater year-on-year savings . ‘Career’ (executive stream?) offices will have no great desire to serve in the MOD on 5 year tours as it will damage their advancement prospects within their own Services (apart from the appeal of spending 5 years living in a dingy squat/SFA in Bushy).
As a by-product of all of this (and I am not appealing to the tin-foil hat brigade here), the Service Chiefs will no longer be in Whitehall but reside at their operational HQs, and even fewer SP will serve in MB. This is the first time since before Samuel Pepys’ time that the heads of the Services have not been in Whitehall (or the Strand, as in the case of the RAF in 1918). This is a cataclysmic shift in power and presence of the key apparatus of State. Perhaps the MOD and HQ UKDF will be rusticated (like the BBC) to, oh, Tyneside or (in an effort to appeal to the independent-minded Scots) Clydebank.
But then again, I could be dreaming this Kafkesque-like nightmare.
Moreover, the single Services will have less say on MOD decisions on, for example, tri-service personnel matters, (employment models, TACOS, pay award levels, policy on housing, schooling etc) and there will be fewer service personnel in the MOD to apply the handbrake to even more vindictive policies thought up by an increasingly politicised civil service, where individuals are ‘incentivised’ to make greater year-on-year savings . ‘Career’ (executive stream?) offices will have no great desire to serve in the MOD on 5 year tours as it will damage their advancement prospects within their own Services (apart from the appeal of spending 5 years living in a dingy squat/SFA in Bushy).
As a by-product of all of this (and I am not appealing to the tin-foil hat brigade here), the Service Chiefs will no longer be in Whitehall but reside at their operational HQs, and even fewer SP will serve in MB. This is the first time since before Samuel Pepys’ time that the heads of the Services have not been in Whitehall (or the Strand, as in the case of the RAF in 1918). This is a cataclysmic shift in power and presence of the key apparatus of State. Perhaps the MOD and HQ UKDF will be rusticated (like the BBC) to, oh, Tyneside or (in an effort to appeal to the independent-minded Scots) Clydebank.
But then again, I could be dreaming this Kafkesque-like nightmare.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 28th Jun 2011 at 07:50.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the DRU report makes sense to me. Moving joint areas (Cyber, CIS, Comms) to a Joint HQ will save manpower and avoid duplication; however, I am somewhat at a loss as to why moving the Service Chiefs out of MOD will improve efficiency. Culling 'stars' makes sense as we have too many (across the Services), but only having one uniformed representative on the Defence Board does seem to put a lot more power in the hands of the Civil Servants. Guess we'll have to wait for the detail.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Looking at the RAAF strength of arounf 15k and 3* Chief of Air Force, a 4* in the RAF looks about right, but two 4*?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Am I off the mark, or is there a strong whiff of the well-structured (IMHO) Australian model throughout the DRU? Whatever, my first scan gives me a first impression that the easily digestible report makes remarkably good sense and is highly timely.
Hopefully it will not be imminently accompanied by any further scaling down of war-fighting capability. Should that occur, then the DRU might need to reconvene with a view to even further organisational slimming-down
Hopefully it will not be imminently accompanied by any further scaling down of war-fighting capability. Should that occur, then the DRU might need to reconvene with a view to even further organisational slimming-down
Just had a quick skim through the Defence Reform Report They're very keen on contractors aren't they!
I think that it is a very well written and overdue report (no, I didn't write it). I suggest those who are throwing bricks, might like to read the report and once they have finished also go and read Bernard Gray's report on Defence acquisition as well. The main points, which I welcome, are:
Removal of the single service chiefs from main building who were always a hurdle to progress, forever bringing single service politics into any issue rather than, as the report states, what is best for Defence. The single services will now have their own budgets and also have their feet held to the fire to manage them - no more blaming the other services for failure.
JFCOM taking on the role of SRO for things like ISTAR etc, which will allow a much more balanced approach to such capabilities, rather than the RAF fighting with the Army over who controls UAVS, some vision and clarity for the future and some development of a maritime/deployable/Litorral ISTAR capability.
Significant reduction in the Capability Sponsor areas, which involved huge numbers of people, just manipulating money every year. A complete waste of resource and time.
Refocus of the Headquarters on Strategic and financial issues rather than the long screwdrivering it has conducted up to now, even getting involved in PJHQ and FLC business.
Lord Levene gives a very good summary at the end of why previous attempts have on the whole, failed. His recommendations include ensuring that Senior Appointments get more scrutiny, those underperforming get the sack and that those same people are held to account to a Defence Board that does not have single service influences.
All in all, a very welcome report which should be embraced in full, along with Bernard Gray's reforms.
Removal of the single service chiefs from main building who were always a hurdle to progress, forever bringing single service politics into any issue rather than, as the report states, what is best for Defence. The single services will now have their own budgets and also have their feet held to the fire to manage them - no more blaming the other services for failure.
JFCOM taking on the role of SRO for things like ISTAR etc, which will allow a much more balanced approach to such capabilities, rather than the RAF fighting with the Army over who controls UAVS, some vision and clarity for the future and some development of a maritime/deployable/Litorral ISTAR capability.
Significant reduction in the Capability Sponsor areas, which involved huge numbers of people, just manipulating money every year. A complete waste of resource and time.
Refocus of the Headquarters on Strategic and financial issues rather than the long screwdrivering it has conducted up to now, even getting involved in PJHQ and FLC business.
Lord Levene gives a very good summary at the end of why previous attempts have on the whole, failed. His recommendations include ensuring that Senior Appointments get more scrutiny, those underperforming get the sack and that those same people are held to account to a Defence Board that does not have single service influences.
All in all, a very welcome report which should be embraced in full, along with Bernard Gray's reforms.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally ...
Getting quite close to a paper what I wrote (sic). In brief:
CDS & CJO - 4*
NATO Officers - 4*/3* - as required by symbolism (stay > the Phlegms)
Service Heads - 3*
So, for the RAF, this would mean:
CinC - 3*
DCinC/AMP - 2*
AOC Pointy Group - 1*
AOC Eating/Rotary/Enablers Group - 1*
AOC Trg & JPA Group -1*
COS Pointy Group - gp capt
COS Eating/Rotary/Enablers Group - gp capt
COS Trg & JPA Group - gp capt
Wing (ie MOB) Commander - wg cdr
Sqn Cdr - sqn ldr
Flt Cdr - flt lt
Lever puller - fg off
OIC coffee bar/nurses & teachers for parties/gaffes/drafting letters of apology - plt off
Chuck in transitional pay & pension relief and Bob ist dein Onkel. Admittedly, I haven’t fully thought the implementation part owing to crushing apathy; however, that’s the shape the Services need to be - provided - the grotesquely bloated Civil Service hierarchy is similarly pruned.
CDS & CJO - 4*
NATO Officers - 4*/3* - as required by symbolism (stay > the Phlegms)
Service Heads - 3*
So, for the RAF, this would mean:
CinC - 3*
DCinC/AMP - 2*
AOC Pointy Group - 1*
AOC Eating/Rotary/Enablers Group - 1*
AOC Trg & JPA Group -1*
COS Pointy Group - gp capt
COS Eating/Rotary/Enablers Group - gp capt
COS Trg & JPA Group - gp capt
Wing (ie MOB) Commander - wg cdr
Sqn Cdr - sqn ldr
Flt Cdr - flt lt
Lever puller - fg off
OIC coffee bar/nurses & teachers for parties/gaffes/drafting letters of apology - plt off
Chuck in transitional pay & pension relief and Bob ist dein Onkel. Admittedly, I haven’t fully thought the implementation part owing to crushing apathy; however, that’s the shape the Services need to be - provided - the grotesquely bloated Civil Service hierarchy is similarly pruned.