Staffing levels
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've hesitated about posting join this thread, but I thought that my personal experience here might help the exchange of views. I served in a number of RN unit and staff appointments thought the 80s and 90s into the 00s, mostly at what became better known as SO1, SO2 and SO3 levels.
I have to observe that during that time, there was a clear and regrettable tendency across all three services (and the Civil Service) to inflate the ranks required to hold down a post. In my direct experience, I left an Engineering Authority post in the early 90s as a Lt Cdr (SO2). Seven years later, that post was held by a full Captain. The 'grade inflation' outstripped my modest abilities to move up the ladder, and potential jobs were accelerating away from me.
This was a true 'tri-service' issue. The honest truth was that the officer 'class' of all three services were doing nothing more than looking after themselves by inventing ever more spurious reasons to award themselves higher pay via promotion. And it led to devaluation of ranks and distortion of effort right down there ladders. Again, in my direct experience, I encountered SO3s doing tasks that not only could have been carried out by SNCOs, but should have been. The SNCOs would have made a better fist of them. Meanwhile the SO3s were rightly getting fed up with the way that they were being under-employed.
This effect was noted a few years ago in evidence to parliament, and I remember some interesting graphs appearing showing how the numbers of OF-5 and OF-6 posts had just exploded, particularly during the 90s, across all three services and the CS equivalents.
My take is that the UK Armed Forces need a serious 'reset' on what they expect their officers to do at the various ranks. It would not only give the taxpayer better value for money, but also far more rewarding and enjoyable jobs for the junior officers - and that would lead to better senior officers.
Hope this helps
Engines
I have to observe that during that time, there was a clear and regrettable tendency across all three services (and the Civil Service) to inflate the ranks required to hold down a post. In my direct experience, I left an Engineering Authority post in the early 90s as a Lt Cdr (SO2). Seven years later, that post was held by a full Captain. The 'grade inflation' outstripped my modest abilities to move up the ladder, and potential jobs were accelerating away from me.
This was a true 'tri-service' issue. The honest truth was that the officer 'class' of all three services were doing nothing more than looking after themselves by inventing ever more spurious reasons to award themselves higher pay via promotion. And it led to devaluation of ranks and distortion of effort right down there ladders. Again, in my direct experience, I encountered SO3s doing tasks that not only could have been carried out by SNCOs, but should have been. The SNCOs would have made a better fist of them. Meanwhile the SO3s were rightly getting fed up with the way that they were being under-employed.
This effect was noted a few years ago in evidence to parliament, and I remember some interesting graphs appearing showing how the numbers of OF-5 and OF-6 posts had just exploded, particularly during the 90s, across all three services and the CS equivalents.
My take is that the UK Armed Forces need a serious 'reset' on what they expect their officers to do at the various ranks. It would not only give the taxpayer better value for money, but also far more rewarding and enjoyable jobs for the junior officers - and that would lead to better senior officers.
Hope this helps
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur entirely Engines. Just the other day I was talking to a Lt RN who had been forced to endure the spectacle of a 1 star - with much theatre, making the same decision, for a single aircraft, as the Lt had been authorised to make in his previous job.
How often do we see the requirement for a brief such that those with the empowerment (some number of needless stars) can have a fraction of the SA of the experts? Why do we insist on wasting peoples' time pushing decisions up the chain when they could be made easily, and appropriately at desk level?
The other function this staffing performs is to ensure, due to lag in working group, to steering group, to programme board, to service board that by the time the 3 star makes the bleeding obvious decision that the SO2 could have made for him, we are three months down the road and the SO2 is trying to make the next decision - but is merely (forlornly) penning another brief for his SO1.
How often do we see the requirement for a brief such that those with the empowerment (some number of needless stars) can have a fraction of the SA of the experts? Why do we insist on wasting peoples' time pushing decisions up the chain when they could be made easily, and appropriately at desk level?
The other function this staffing performs is to ensure, due to lag in working group, to steering group, to programme board, to service board that by the time the 3 star makes the bleeding obvious decision that the SO2 could have made for him, we are three months down the road and the SO2 is trying to make the next decision - but is merely (forlornly) penning another brief for his SO1.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW
I think not. The point being Sqn Ldrs don't lead Sqns.
I think not. The point being Sqn Ldrs don't lead Sqns.
Although in fact it doesn't matter what rank they are. One could quite easily 'reset' ranks by one step. It would at least be logical. Could even pay them the same as their old rank, although now I'm retired I would laugh like a drain if they all had a pay cut.
I remember reading a briefing sheet put out by our OC Admin in 2000 showing the percentage reductions in numbers of RAF personnel betwwen 1990 and 99. ORs 31%, JOs 14%, SOs 3%. I'm pessimistic about the outcome of the forthcoming review into SO numbers.
Might those percentages be less a conspiracy and more to do with the way the RAF and units are structured - in fact any unit in any of the Services.
If the aim is to trim fat and cut costs, you cut units and sqns. Which means you're only going to lose a single wg cdr and a handful of sqn ldrs but a lot of ORs.
I think it will be similar this time round. The nature of the warfare today is that it has become less manpower intensive whilst there is a seemingly ever level if effort required on the staffing side to comply with all the various bits of policy, emerging doctrine, technology and planning for multiple ops, most if which never see light of day.
Now Orca has a point, there have been plenty of tines that I as an SO2 could have made a decision but wasn't allowed to, it had to go to a grown up for sign off. So let's use the people we have more wisely, but let's not pretend that in doing so we will cut huge amounts of personnel in the process. Vested interests apart, who would do all the dull staff and HQ jobs if old farts like me aren't shuffled off into a warm chair? I'm not sure getting your fighting elements to do them is best use of their time and specific skillsets.
If the aim is to trim fat and cut costs, you cut units and sqns. Which means you're only going to lose a single wg cdr and a handful of sqn ldrs but a lot of ORs.
I think it will be similar this time round. The nature of the warfare today is that it has become less manpower intensive whilst there is a seemingly ever level if effort required on the staffing side to comply with all the various bits of policy, emerging doctrine, technology and planning for multiple ops, most if which never see light of day.
Now Orca has a point, there have been plenty of tines that I as an SO2 could have made a decision but wasn't allowed to, it had to go to a grown up for sign off. So let's use the people we have more wisely, but let's not pretend that in doing so we will cut huge amounts of personnel in the process. Vested interests apart, who would do all the dull staff and HQ jobs if old farts like me aren't shuffled off into a warm chair? I'm not sure getting your fighting elements to do them is best use of their time and specific skillsets.
His reasoning was that if the order made sense to this individual, it was fit to be published. - Cornish Jack
Always used to be known variously as "the Major Smith test", or with a similar reference to Napoleon's thickest major - if they could understand an order, then anyone could.
Jack
Always used to be known variously as "the Major Smith test", or with a similar reference to Napoleon's thickest major - if they could understand an order, then anyone could.
Jack
Jayc,
With respect, your figures are hoop. There are (very roughly!) about 3900 sqn ldrs and above and (very roughly!) 3400 established, productive posts for them. So, in bare terms, that is about 15% 'overmanned' (NOT 115%).
However, deduct a whole bunch of warm bodies who are unavailable to fill established posts because of training courses, long-term sickness, p/m-aternity leave, in unestablished posts (short or long term), on Service Inquiries, terminal leave, etc, etc, then it's no surprise that the average stn has gaps at sqn ldr level.
With respect, your figures are hoop. There are (very roughly!) about 3900 sqn ldrs and above and (very roughly!) 3400 established, productive posts for them. So, in bare terms, that is about 15% 'overmanned' (NOT 115%).
However, deduct a whole bunch of warm bodies who are unavailable to fill established posts because of training courses, long-term sickness, p/m-aternity leave, in unestablished posts (short or long term), on Service Inquiries, terminal leave, etc, etc, then it's no surprise that the average stn has gaps at sqn ldr level.
RLE
I never stated that Sqn Ldrs were over manned by 115%, I commented that some ranks are over manned by that figure. Sqn Ldrs are the least over manned at 3%.
I take it you have the document I'm referring too?
Page 19 clearly states the surplus %.
I never stated that Sqn Ldrs were over manned by 115%, I commented that some ranks are over manned by that figure. Sqn Ldrs are the least over manned at 3%.
I take it you have the document I'm referring too?
Page 19 clearly states the surplus %.
Jayc,
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Note my figures are for all ranks at sqn ldr and above. My source was different from your document (and no doubt both are equally inaccurate!)
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Note my figures are for all ranks at sqn ldr and above. My source was different from your document (and no doubt both are equally inaccurate!)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well speaking personally of the four light blue SO2s who left my last area the average gap before we got a replacement was 4 months. Priority 3 manning slot mind you. Still, hardly reaks of overmanning.
Was discussed on another pprune thread recently but the SDSR bespoke look at OF5s and above recently reported cuts of circa 8% with much 'job well done' satisfaction. Sadly, overall manpower has fallen by circa 20% in the same period so as a force percentage there are now more seniors than before the review to specifically reduce them! To counter, the OF5s I've worked for recently work bloody hard - not sure where all the lazy seniors are lurking?
Was discussed on another pprune thread recently but the SDSR bespoke look at OF5s and above recently reported cuts of circa 8% with much 'job well done' satisfaction. Sadly, overall manpower has fallen by circa 20% in the same period so as a force percentage there are now more seniors than before the review to specifically reduce them! To counter, the OF5s I've worked for recently work bloody hard - not sure where all the lazy seniors are lurking?
jayc530,
Why can't you just post a link to the document you are looking at and stop all the mystery? Government Statistical Service data doesn't appear to be classified. As an example, I found this one, which isn't yours but must be getting close:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...port_oct14.pdf
Why can't you just post a link to the document you are looking at and stop all the mystery? Government Statistical Service data doesn't appear to be classified. As an example, I found this one, which isn't yours but must be getting close:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...port_oct14.pdf
I don't have access to the page jayc530 is referring to, but in the interests of introducing some facts into this "debate", Table 1 on page 5 of this link gives the numbers of officers by rank in the RAF on 1st April 2014:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eport_2014.pdf
In terms of number of senior officers vs overall size of service (which is admittedly a very crude measurement), the RAF (35,230) and RN (33,330) seem fairly similar in terms of numbers of OF-9/8/7/6.
In fact, especially given the recent news about reducing the number of Army senior officers, the Army seems to be the leanest of the three. At 91,070 it is about 2.5 x the size of the RAF, but generally has less than 2.5 x the number of senior officers the RAF and RN have.
I will once again state my size of servive vs number of senior officers is a very crude method of comparison.
As for having 115% more than required in one of the RAF senior ranks, nothing leaps out.
Can you tell us which rank jayc530?
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eport_2014.pdf
In terms of number of senior officers vs overall size of service (which is admittedly a very crude measurement), the RAF (35,230) and RN (33,330) seem fairly similar in terms of numbers of OF-9/8/7/6.
In fact, especially given the recent news about reducing the number of Army senior officers, the Army seems to be the leanest of the three. At 91,070 it is about 2.5 x the size of the RAF, but generally has less than 2.5 x the number of senior officers the RAF and RN have.
I will once again state my size of servive vs number of senior officers is a very crude method of comparison.
As for having 115% more than required in one of the RAF senior ranks, nothing leaps out.
Can you tell us which rank jayc530?
Biggus (#94)
What struck me from your link (and table 1) is how many Warrant Officers (OR9) the RAF have. Granted, an element of these will by MACR but still, in percentage terms, it is double the Army (though, in fairness, they also have a WO2 rank). And in percentage terms the RAF have more OR6 (Sgt) and above than the other services.
Perhaps rank creep / rank gradient is not just a problem with RAF senior officers ....
What struck me from your link (and table 1) is how many Warrant Officers (OR9) the RAF have. Granted, an element of these will by MACR but still, in percentage terms, it is double the Army (though, in fairness, they also have a WO2 rank). And in percentage terms the RAF have more OR6 (Sgt) and above than the other services.
Perhaps rank creep / rank gradient is not just a problem with RAF senior officers ....
Wrathmonk,
The fighting element of the RAF is (in the main, before anyone has a go about their particular trade branch, such as Regiment, etc) generally the aircrew, which largely comprises junior officers and SNCOs. In the Army a Lt will lead 50 odd junior ranks into combat, in the RAF a Flt Lt may lead 3 other Flt Lts in a 4 ship into combat.
Thus the RAF has a higher proportion of OF-2s than either the RN or Army. Quite how many NCO Aircrew we have left these days I don't know, but their presence will inflate the RAF figures for OR-6, 7 and 9. I believe Kinloss used to have the largest Sgts Mess in the RAF at one stage, or was it Lyneham - the point is the same.
If you're saying we should reopen the debate about Cpls in flying posts in the RAF, well that would reduce your supposed "rank creep" at junior levels.
The fighting element of the RAF is (in the main, before anyone has a go about their particular trade branch, such as Regiment, etc) generally the aircrew, which largely comprises junior officers and SNCOs. In the Army a Lt will lead 50 odd junior ranks into combat, in the RAF a Flt Lt may lead 3 other Flt Lts in a 4 ship into combat.
Thus the RAF has a higher proportion of OF-2s than either the RN or Army. Quite how many NCO Aircrew we have left these days I don't know, but their presence will inflate the RAF figures for OR-6, 7 and 9. I believe Kinloss used to have the largest Sgts Mess in the RAF at one stage, or was it Lyneham - the point is the same.
If you're saying we should reopen the debate about Cpls in flying posts in the RAF, well that would reduce your supposed "rank creep" at junior levels.
jayc530,
Kindly don't think I'm "having a go" at you, or disputing your figures, it's just that I can't see them, or at least if they're in the public domain I can't find them.
I would be very interested to know which group is over manned by 115%. I'd like to know whether it is say Air Commodores in general, or something very specific like Gp Capt dentists?
Kindly don't think I'm "having a go" at you, or disputing your figures, it's just that I can't see them, or at least if they're in the public domain I can't find them.
I would be very interested to know which group is over manned by 115%. I'd like to know whether it is say Air Commodores in general, or something very specific like Gp Capt dentists?