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

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Parson

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

Is it unavoidable?

Is it a fact?

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

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

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

[Parson]

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

[Roland Pulfrew]

Parson

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

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

[Pontius Navigator]

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

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

[4ROCK]

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

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

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

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

[MPN11]

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

[alfred_the_great]

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

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

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

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

How does that sound as an idea?

[4ROCK]

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

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

[Door Slider]

Defence Medical Service already exists:

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

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


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

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

[alfred_the_great]

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

[Parson]

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

[dctyke]

Were any LEAN exercises undertook at HQSTC?

[Willard Whyte]

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

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



Marine Corps Active Duty Personnel by Rank/Grade

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

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


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

TOTAL ENLISTED------ 176,174

GRAND TOTAL ------198,427



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

[Roland Pulfrew]

Parson

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

Thanks, I can read, I have read your opinion

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

. If, however you had bothered to read my posts, you would see I am more interested in why you make your assertions, not what your (unsubstantiated) opinion is!

[Parson]

RP,

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

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

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Willard Whyte

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

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

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

[Willard Whyte]

[Fortissimo]

dctyke,

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

[Red Line Entry]

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

[Pontius Navigator]

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

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

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

No bureaucracy can exist with out bureaucracy.