Manning Undershoot Imminent?
Thread Starter
Manning Undershoot Imminent?
Just been looking at this https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...port_oct14.pdf
It looks like we are well ahead of the curve to achieve Future Force 2020. I would say we are about 4 years ahead and well past the Interim Force 2015 goals. Looking at the reduction curve, it looks like we'll undershoot next year.
Seeing as we seem to be offering FRIs to lots of different branches and 'golden hellos' to TG4 and Reserves - anyone care to speculate on next year's pay deal and terms of service?
I'm hearing on the jungle drums of an increase in FTRS contract lengths (maybe double their current lengths) and also Home to Duty payments to them as well.
It is after all, a Rumour Network!
LJ
It looks like we are well ahead of the curve to achieve Future Force 2020. I would say we are about 4 years ahead and well past the Interim Force 2015 goals. Looking at the reduction curve, it looks like we'll undershoot next year.
Seeing as we seem to be offering FRIs to lots of different branches and 'golden hellos' to TG4 and Reserves - anyone care to speculate on next year's pay deal and terms of service?
I'm hearing on the jungle drums of an increase in FTRS contract lengths (maybe double their current lengths) and also Home to Duty payments to them as well.
It is after all, a Rumour Network!
LJ
1. Well ahead? The object of the exercise is surely to maintain a reducing requirement. Having less personnel than the requirement merely increases the load on everyone else, and probably has a connection to the increased Voluntary Outflow rates (table 12b).
2. There appears to be zero success in recruiting more women or ethnic minorities.
3.. Recruiting Reserve Army squaddies looks to be failing dismally.
The general numbers game could disguise shortages in critical trades. What's the buzz on that one?
From E-Goat
http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showt...es-go-up/page3
Manning of TG4 expected to drop to 75% by next April. That's from Manning. Rumour that PVR wait will increase from 12 to 18 months.
2. There appears to be zero success in recruiting more women or ethnic minorities.
3.. Recruiting Reserve Army squaddies looks to be failing dismally.
The general numbers game could disguise shortages in critical trades. What's the buzz on that one?
From E-Goat
http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showt...es-go-up/page3
Manning of TG4 expected to drop to 75% by next April. That's from Manning. Rumour that PVR wait will increase from 12 to 18 months.
Thread Starter
Jayc
Stats can be quite misleading. There are something like 75 Air Commodores in the RAF (for comparison it is the same in the RN and there are about 160 Brigadiers in the Army). Now your 115% is 11 extra Air Commodores over the 75, making a total of 86. When you take into account the size of our manpower that is 0.03% of our manpower that we are overborne by (an example of how stats can mislead!).
However, you need to consider 2 things:
1. Air Commodores are only as good as their next posting. If they do not get a posting on the Air Rank Appointments List (ARAL) then they get a 'blue letter' telling them they are to retire - directed retirement. So getting rid of 11 is quite easy when you no longer need them!
2. We probably need these extras for now with 1-star jobs in the Middle East (ISAF HQs, EAWs, etc...). Don't forget, for every out of area post you need 2x Air Commodores - 1 on work up and 1 doing the job.
So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).
LJ
Air Cdre and above over manned by 115%. All ranks from Sqn Ldr are also overmanned.
However, you need to consider 2 things:
1. Air Commodores are only as good as their next posting. If they do not get a posting on the Air Rank Appointments List (ARAL) then they get a 'blue letter' telling them they are to retire - directed retirement. So getting rid of 11 is quite easy when you no longer need them!
2. We probably need these extras for now with 1-star jobs in the Middle East (ISAF HQs, EAWs, etc...). Don't forget, for every out of area post you need 2x Air Commodores - 1 on work up and 1 doing the job.
So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).
LJ
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I brought this up a few months back in the "Wakey wakey manning" thread.
Before discussing the light blue it's interesting to note the army have reached their 82k manning level and are hurtling south past it! Probably the only element of FF2020 that will happen.....
The light blue seem happy to be still shrinking at over 100 a month. Unless recruitment nearly doubles they too will reach the FF2020 figure of 31500 by next April. All of this is from the MOD manning figures before someone shouts security.
It's a complex beast of established posts no longer needed and unestablshed posts that are manned but on the black economy, mixed with the 1000 or so folks that have left and on ressetlement but still on the books and throughput from training. Mannings job is not easy but they are working to a smaller Air Force plan than SDSR 10 direction. Equally, being at or below your 2020 figure in 2015 in time for the defence review is not really stating your case for more people.
Before discussing the light blue it's interesting to note the army have reached their 82k manning level and are hurtling south past it! Probably the only element of FF2020 that will happen.....
The light blue seem happy to be still shrinking at over 100 a month. Unless recruitment nearly doubles they too will reach the FF2020 figure of 31500 by next April. All of this is from the MOD manning figures before someone shouts security.
It's a complex beast of established posts no longer needed and unestablshed posts that are manned but on the black economy, mixed with the 1000 or so folks that have left and on ressetlement but still on the books and throughput from training. Mannings job is not easy but they are working to a smaller Air Force plan than SDSR 10 direction. Equally, being at or below your 2020 figure in 2015 in time for the defence review is not really stating your case for more people.
So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).
The manning shortfall is even more worrying when you look at some of the other 'levers' being employed - transfer 200-ish previously aircrew annotated posts to 'any' - which of course means if you are posted in to one of them as aircrew, your "flying pay" clock starts ticking - and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).
Leon,
It's 115%! Whether it's 11 or not, it's hardly leading by example and the excuse that the army and navy have equal numbers is tiresome. Sqn Ldr upwards are all over manned, how can this be allowed to happen?
In the same paper of statistics, manning levels in all but a few ranks and trades is in deficit.
But hey, as long as everything is rosey at the top who cares.
It's 115%! Whether it's 11 or not, it's hardly leading by example and the excuse that the army and navy have equal numbers is tiresome. Sqn Ldr upwards are all over manned, how can this be allowed to happen?
In the same paper of statistics, manning levels in all but a few ranks and trades is in deficit.
But hey, as long as everything is rosey at the top who cares.
Roland Pulfrew wrote:
What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?
Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem....
....and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).
Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem....
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle posted:
"Roland Pulfrew wrote: Quote:
....and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).
What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?
Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem.... "
I am in a situation where I wish to sign on past the age off 55, to enable me to complete 30 years service (late joiner, ground trade), and I was informed several months ago that this would be possible under the revised rules of the NEM.
The announcement was due to be made in Oct but, as is the norm, this has been delayed and the rules regarding Chf Techs (does not affect me) being allowed to sign on past 30 years service (which was due to be announced first) has not yet been released. Looks like it will be too late for me as my exit date is early next year.....
All of this info can be found on the www, so no opsec issues here:
OR (Ground Trades – less exceptions below)
• Initial engagement of 12 yrs.
• Offer EDP (20/40) on promotion to Cpl.
• Offer LOS 30 on promotion to Sgt.
• Offer LOS 32 on promotion to Chf Tech.
• Offer LOS 35 on promotion to FS and WO.
• Offer Mandated End Of Service (MEOS) to age 60, based on
Service need.
"Roland Pulfrew wrote: Quote:
....and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).
What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?
Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem.... "
I am in a situation where I wish to sign on past the age off 55, to enable me to complete 30 years service (late joiner, ground trade), and I was informed several months ago that this would be possible under the revised rules of the NEM.
The announcement was due to be made in Oct but, as is the norm, this has been delayed and the rules regarding Chf Techs (does not affect me) being allowed to sign on past 30 years service (which was due to be announced first) has not yet been released. Looks like it will be too late for me as my exit date is early next year.....
All of this info can be found on the www, so no opsec issues here:
OR (Ground Trades – less exceptions below)
• Initial engagement of 12 yrs.
• Offer EDP (20/40) on promotion to Cpl.
• Offer LOS 30 on promotion to Sgt.
• Offer LOS 32 on promotion to Chf Tech.
• Offer LOS 35 on promotion to FS and WO.
• Offer Mandated End Of Service (MEOS) to age 60, based on
Service need.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Geardown107:
I don't think so - there were over 50 PVR in the 12 months after tranche 2, and I get the impression there is a new flood of PVR /NGR imminent from the ISTAR fleets right now. Combined with no recruiting or training being done for over 4 years, soon we'll be hooking any surplus from Brize /Benson /Odiham and turning them into siggies.
Well, WSOps of all specialisations are flush still, esp Aco and EW.
Last edited by camelspyyder; 14th Dec 2014 at 09:44. Reason: spealang as usual
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that the (future) issue is not going to be purely numbers, but the quality, and most importantly of all the experience of the individuals leaving.
With so much experience gained over the last 20 years in both operations and joint/coalition staff appointments by our personnel, it is those experienced personnel that I see moving onto pastures new. Not only weiry of constant deployments, many (of all ranks) have just had enough of the constant eroding of their terms and conditions (and that is without the full details of NEM known, and the Chancellor's renewed efforts to again review the AFPS in the next Parliament), from what I see as the brightest and best easily sliding across into civvie street. The numbers of people required by the MoD /Treasury may have reduced, but the number of tasks and workload has not, resulting in those left behind invariably doing 2-3 jobs in one job title. Interestingly those that I witnessed leave do not always go into the airlines/rotary industry (one returned to the station only 5 months after leaving with a property portfolio that was maintaining a very nice life style, and another had invested in a well known franchise that had also improved his family's quality of life).
As I approach the Terminal Fix in my career, bound only really by pension and some misguided loyalty to Queen and Country, I look around and I either see a lot of new keen enthusiastic youth, or a disillusioned youth a few years in already planning their exit strategy, or people like me that are either too idle or not bright enough to actually make the jump.
Sadly what I have witnessed is those experienced personnel left, counting down the pension or CEA clock until they leave have lost all of the ethos, enthusiasm and loyalty with which we were so proud. With the belief that the MoD no longer values them, many appear to view their work place as purely a job, where they are always on the look out for an early stack, or dodging work/duties-its not like the city or the private sector where there are often bonuses or they are bound by contracts that include TOIL. No one gives theses older experienced personnel work beyond the bare minimum as they know it will be done with minimum effort, need constant supervision and probably not be on time.
This sets a very poor example to the youth, initially eager and keen, who invariably get lemoned with the work that the more experienced personnel should be getting. FTRS has been seen to make this worse in some places as some view themselves as pseudo civvies service providers with a contract that that they believe prevents them from being involved in the less appealing aspects of service life.
I find it interesting to note that there is much less whinging on Prune these days as the majority of these posters have got the message, if you don't like it then leave. The manners actually have a relatively easy job making the numbers fit the spreadsheets and data bases.
I personally believe that the silent threat though is actually capturing exactly what levels of skills and experience (not just the qualification) of the VO. It may only be a small %, but if that small % is either the most talented or most experienced in their field of expertise then there is a fall (tactical failure?) waiting to happen as the political assumptions of SDSR 10 and FF2020 already seem so out of date.
With so much experience gained over the last 20 years in both operations and joint/coalition staff appointments by our personnel, it is those experienced personnel that I see moving onto pastures new. Not only weiry of constant deployments, many (of all ranks) have just had enough of the constant eroding of their terms and conditions (and that is without the full details of NEM known, and the Chancellor's renewed efforts to again review the AFPS in the next Parliament), from what I see as the brightest and best easily sliding across into civvie street. The numbers of people required by the MoD /Treasury may have reduced, but the number of tasks and workload has not, resulting in those left behind invariably doing 2-3 jobs in one job title. Interestingly those that I witnessed leave do not always go into the airlines/rotary industry (one returned to the station only 5 months after leaving with a property portfolio that was maintaining a very nice life style, and another had invested in a well known franchise that had also improved his family's quality of life).
As I approach the Terminal Fix in my career, bound only really by pension and some misguided loyalty to Queen and Country, I look around and I either see a lot of new keen enthusiastic youth, or a disillusioned youth a few years in already planning their exit strategy, or people like me that are either too idle or not bright enough to actually make the jump.
Sadly what I have witnessed is those experienced personnel left, counting down the pension or CEA clock until they leave have lost all of the ethos, enthusiasm and loyalty with which we were so proud. With the belief that the MoD no longer values them, many appear to view their work place as purely a job, where they are always on the look out for an early stack, or dodging work/duties-its not like the city or the private sector where there are often bonuses or they are bound by contracts that include TOIL. No one gives theses older experienced personnel work beyond the bare minimum as they know it will be done with minimum effort, need constant supervision and probably not be on time.
This sets a very poor example to the youth, initially eager and keen, who invariably get lemoned with the work that the more experienced personnel should be getting. FTRS has been seen to make this worse in some places as some view themselves as pseudo civvies service providers with a contract that that they believe prevents them from being involved in the less appealing aspects of service life.
I find it interesting to note that there is much less whinging on Prune these days as the majority of these posters have got the message, if you don't like it then leave. The manners actually have a relatively easy job making the numbers fit the spreadsheets and data bases.
I personally believe that the silent threat though is actually capturing exactly what levels of skills and experience (not just the qualification) of the VO. It may only be a small %, but if that small % is either the most talented or most experienced in their field of expertise then there is a fall (tactical failure?) waiting to happen as the political assumptions of SDSR 10 and FF2020 already seem so out of date.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 14th Dec 2014 at 10:57.
FTRS has been seen to make this worse in some places as some view themselves as pseudo civvies service providers with a contract that prevents them from being involved in the less appealing aspects of service life.
Just Another Jockey - FTRS do not get HTD at present, whereas all other Reserves do. There are a very select few in London or those with a very special case through Manning that get it.
The B Word
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Word,
Apologies if offence caused-not my intent, just a personal observation.
I chose my language carefully by using words like 'some' and 'believe'.
I certainly recognise that in some areas FTRS provides the continuity and experience that appears to be fading from the majority of all 3 Services and is realistically the only solution, but sadly I have also witnessed some that view FTRS as a retirement job where they do not have to get involved with the less appealing aspects of service life or areas that they believe is beyond their 'contract'. Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments.
I most certainly would not tarnish all with the same brush.
Apologies if offence caused-not my intent, just a personal observation.
I chose my language carefully by using words like 'some' and 'believe'.
I certainly recognise that in some areas FTRS provides the continuity and experience that appears to be fading from the majority of all 3 Services and is realistically the only solution, but sadly I have also witnessed some that view FTRS as a retirement job where they do not have to get involved with the less appealing aspects of service life or areas that they believe is beyond their 'contract'. Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments.
I most certainly would not tarnish all with the same brush.
MM4
Thanks matey - yes, I can see your 'some' now that my my red mist has subsided!
On the deployability - any FTRS can choose to deploy at any time (I did this recently). However, as Home Commitment don't get X-factor in their pay (which for me is £7.5k per annum) then the voluntary ability to commit to deployment is welcome. However, don't forget that it is a shortish term contract and so if the FTRS person doesn't volunteer occasionally then the chain of command may be unlikely to renew. Those on Limited Commitment can deploy up to 21 days at a time and up to max of 35 days per annum total (again they can volunteer for more and I know one of the RAFRLOs was well over his 35 days last year). Limited Commitment get 1/2 X-Factor. Full Commitment is the same as a Regular and gets full X-Factor of 14.5%.
As ever, there are wakners in every branch, specialisation or commitment type, but I think you got it spot on - FTRS gives back continuity and experience, which is something that has been missing recently.
B Word
Thanks matey - yes, I can see your 'some' now that my my red mist has subsided!
On the deployability - any FTRS can choose to deploy at any time (I did this recently). However, as Home Commitment don't get X-factor in their pay (which for me is £7.5k per annum) then the voluntary ability to commit to deployment is welcome. However, don't forget that it is a shortish term contract and so if the FTRS person doesn't volunteer occasionally then the chain of command may be unlikely to renew. Those on Limited Commitment can deploy up to 21 days at a time and up to max of 35 days per annum total (again they can volunteer for more and I know one of the RAFRLOs was well over his 35 days last year). Limited Commitment get 1/2 X-Factor. Full Commitment is the same as a Regular and gets full X-Factor of 14.5%.
As ever, there are wakners in every branch, specialisation or commitment type, but I think you got it spot on - FTRS gives back continuity and experience, which is something that has been missing recently.
B Word
MM4,
Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments
With respect, FTRS don't choose not to deploy. This is decided by the job spec.
Home commitment = no deployment
Limited. = limited days
Full commitment. = deployable.
Remembering that on HC you are not entitled to any med, dent, housing, etc it would make it difficult to deploy someone who you have no access to their med records.
Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments
With respect, FTRS don't choose not to deploy. This is decided by the job spec.
Home commitment = no deployment
Limited. = limited days
Full commitment. = deployable.
Remembering that on HC you are not entitled to any med, dent, housing, etc it would make it difficult to deploy someone who you have no access to their med records.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TN,
For clarity, my point was that FTRS is not the panacea to the MoD's directive to reduce its numbers and then try and balance the books by re-employing the same people on different (cheaper) contracts, either as a Reserve or FTRS.
Not to get lost in the noise is the key point that it is the experience that is/will be missed, not necessarily the pure numbers count.
If FTRS, in any shape or form, manages to mitigate that experience deficit then I personally am for it, but the policy may have a potential long term affect on those left behind and they either become a VO statistic or lose all sense of ethos, loyalty and pride and view it as a job.
The moment one views the Armed Forces as just another job then I fear that there will be trouble ahead, especially if the future situation looks to get worse than better for Service Personnel. If not more with less, it looks as though we will be doing the same, but with less.
For clarity, my point was that FTRS is not the panacea to the MoD's directive to reduce its numbers and then try and balance the books by re-employing the same people on different (cheaper) contracts, either as a Reserve or FTRS.
Not to get lost in the noise is the key point that it is the experience that is/will be missed, not necessarily the pure numbers count.
If FTRS, in any shape or form, manages to mitigate that experience deficit then I personally am for it, but the policy may have a potential long term affect on those left behind and they either become a VO statistic or lose all sense of ethos, loyalty and pride and view it as a job.
The moment one views the Armed Forces as just another job then I fear that there will be trouble ahead, especially if the future situation looks to get worse than better for Service Personnel. If not more with less, it looks as though we will be doing the same, but with less.