Staffing levels
Thread Starter
Staffing levels
Could someone from the RN please explain why there are more Admirals (of various types) than there are ships & subs??? We do suspect "job's for the boy's" but is there a rationale that doesn't involve the tradition or arrogance or making a good living from the taxpayer??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to do with the number of ships. The number of "stars" is driven by the requirement at that level both in UK Mil jobs and in Joint jobs within NATO and Allied organisations. As UK plc wishes to be represented at "star" level within NATO etc additional posts will be required to be filled over and above the national requirement. Add to that the requirement within the procurement organisation for "star" level directors then one can see why there are more Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals than the number of formations demand. It is a non story.
If you get away from thinking that all military personnel at senior level are expected to be involved in leading people to kill other people, and instead consider them as experienced, knowledgeable experts in the business of defence, then it makes more sense.
Do you ask if BP have more senior leaders than oil rigs? Or if Mercedes have more directors than factories?
Do you ask if BP have more senior leaders than oil rigs? Or if Mercedes have more directors than factories?
Thread Starter
Thankyou for your eloquent explanations. A very nice self perpetuating arse kissers club, at tax payers expense too! brilliant! All that god, sorry, GOLD braid too, fabulous!
Red Line; I don't question BP or Mercedes because I do not fund them unless I wish to buy one of their products. Your reply is very disingenuous i'm afraid. Typical establishment bluster.
Red Line; I don't question BP or Mercedes because I do not fund them unless I wish to buy one of their products. Your reply is very disingenuous i'm afraid. Typical establishment bluster.
Simply because BP or Mercedes are not publicly funded does not make the comparison invalid. Like those companies, the military is a large and complex organisation that is required to deliver an output demanded by its customer, that customer being the taxpayer.
So if you, as the taxpayer, want senior people with appropriate experience and training making the important decisions, then you have to have a structure that allows sufficient numbers of such people to be employed.
..but why do I feel I'm wasting my time treating your question seriously...?
So if you, as the taxpayer, want senior people with appropriate experience and training making the important decisions, then you have to have a structure that allows sufficient numbers of such people to be employed.
..but why do I feel I'm wasting my time treating your question seriously...?
Thread Starter
Red Line;
The very fact that the military is publicly funded makes my scrutiny, as a taxpayer, all the more important and this is where the complacency and arrogance of the military as a whole, in ignoring it, is quite unacceptable in the modern era. I suspect in the era of modern warfare a well chosen mercenary army would be far more effective and efficient than the traditional vestiges of the established system. Remember, Napoleon didn't need "clever" generals he preferred lucky ones, and before you say how "clever" Wellington was, his men outnumbered the opposition 3 to 1.
The very fact that the military is publicly funded makes my scrutiny, as a taxpayer, all the more important and this is where the complacency and arrogance of the military as a whole, in ignoring it, is quite unacceptable in the modern era. I suspect in the era of modern warfare a well chosen mercenary army would be far more effective and efficient than the traditional vestiges of the established system. Remember, Napoleon didn't need "clever" generals he preferred lucky ones, and before you say how "clever" Wellington was, his men outnumbered the opposition 3 to 1.
'Scrutiny' is not making generic insults of complacency and arrogance. I would fully agree that there are plenty of areas in the British military that could be improved, but rather than just throw unsubstantiated accusations, why don't you give some examples of what you consider waste?
So here's a proposal PJ.
Of all those unnecessary admirals, generals and air marshals, name 5 senior level posts that you think should be disestablished, and then explain who you would ask to do the job, or why you think the job does not need doing.
So here's a proposal PJ.
Of all those unnecessary admirals, generals and air marshals, name 5 senior level posts that you think should be disestablished, and then explain who you would ask to do the job, or why you think the job does not need doing.
Thread Starter
Red Line;
No. I don't play that game. You should be a politician, but of course most of the "top brass" already are or act as, in an unelected capacity of course.
I told you I strongly suspect a mercenary force would be highly capable at getting the job done in the modern combat climate. Uniforms are redundant as recent events have tragically shown us. All the expensive "expertise" of Admirals/Generals/ Air Marshall's etc etc. is, apparently worth it because they, and you, and the establishment say it is. Times have changed, unfortunately, and due to many vested interests, the military establishment has not.
No. I don't play that game. You should be a politician, but of course most of the "top brass" already are or act as, in an unelected capacity of course.
I told you I strongly suspect a mercenary force would be highly capable at getting the job done in the modern combat climate. Uniforms are redundant as recent events have tragically shown us. All the expensive "expertise" of Admirals/Generals/ Air Marshall's etc etc. is, apparently worth it because they, and you, and the establishment say it is. Times have changed, unfortunately, and due to many vested interests, the military establishment has not.
A mercenary force might be capable of getting the job done, but there are one or two teensy legal and ethical problems with their employment as a cursory examination of the UN Mercenary Convention (in full, not the Wikipedia entry), the protocols to the laws of armed conflict and the burgeoning literature over the challenges of regulating Private Military Companies (both in terms of the way their employers use them and their position under status of forces agreements in host nations) demonstrates.
I'm not going to comment further about the rank issue, since the tone of your responses suggests that you're not remotely interested in the answers offered to what wasn't, in fact, a sincere question, but bait.
I'm not going to comment further about the rank issue, since the tone of your responses suggests that you're not remotely interested in the answers offered to what wasn't, in fact, a sincere question, but bait.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's trolling (or a Grauniad reporter) on the Private Flying bit of the forum at the moment as well. Keep it going, it's better than watching telly.
PJ,
I work in the international environment where there are a small number of senior ranks doing what we refer to as Defence Engagement (previously Defence Diplomacy). A lot of it is about meetings in smoked-filled rooms; sidebar discussions with senior foreign diplomats as the trays of Ferrero Roche are passed about; exhausted spouses of said senior officers hosting yet more dinner parties to facilitate protection of British interests and National Security. You may snigger at it but I suggest you watch the Mitchell and Webb gem 'The Ambassadors' to see what I mean.
Now of course we could replace these senior Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals (and there is only a handful) and their long-suffering wives with young contractors - mercenaries if you like. Firstly, they wouldn't be accredited as Diplomats; secondly they would have absolutely no traction with the local cognoscenti; thirdly they would not deliver any Joint Effect.
But I'm sure you'd enjoy debating the point in the 6th Form Common Room.
I work in the international environment where there are a small number of senior ranks doing what we refer to as Defence Engagement (previously Defence Diplomacy). A lot of it is about meetings in smoked-filled rooms; sidebar discussions with senior foreign diplomats as the trays of Ferrero Roche are passed about; exhausted spouses of said senior officers hosting yet more dinner parties to facilitate protection of British interests and National Security. You may snigger at it but I suggest you watch the Mitchell and Webb gem 'The Ambassadors' to see what I mean.
Now of course we could replace these senior Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals (and there is only a handful) and their long-suffering wives with young contractors - mercenaries if you like. Firstly, they wouldn't be accredited as Diplomats; secondly they would have absolutely no traction with the local cognoscenti; thirdly they would not deliver any Joint Effect.
But I'm sure you'd enjoy debating the point in the 6th Form Common Room.
It is amazing how ignorant some people can be and as much as I'll probably regret it, I'll bite, I've got a couple of minutes free.
So you intend to disband the military - that rings a bell, can't quite place it, but I have a vague recollection it didn't end well for the country in question, and replace us all with mercenaries of questionable loyalty and values.
You mean mercenaries like these?Blackwater guards found guilty in Baghdad mass shootings - CBS News
As for unelected top brass, given that the most senior appointments are ratified by the government rather than just made by the services, and that you as a voter elect the government to act in your behalf .....
Or are you just a rabid socialist who detests the idea of organisational hierarchies? Or did you just fail OASC?
So you intend to disband the military - that rings a bell, can't quite place it, but I have a vague recollection it didn't end well for the country in question, and replace us all with mercenaries of questionable loyalty and values.
You mean mercenaries like these?Blackwater guards found guilty in Baghdad mass shootings - CBS News
As for unelected top brass, given that the most senior appointments are ratified by the government rather than just made by the services, and that you as a voter elect the government to act in your behalf .....
Or are you just a rabid socialist who detests the idea of organisational hierarchies? Or did you just fail OASC?
Last edited by Melchett01; 18th Jan 2015 at 19:33.
Private Jet,
The initial OP is wrong.
There aren't more Admirals in the RN than ships.
There are 40 Admirals serving in the RN, and the RN currently has 60 ships, not counting minor and patrol vessels, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary or ships (such as the 2 aircraft carriers) building or on order.
The initial OP is wrong.
There aren't more Admirals in the RN than ships.
There are 40 Admirals serving in the RN, and the RN currently has 60 ships, not counting minor and patrol vessels, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary or ships (such as the 2 aircraft carriers) building or on order.
Last time I looked, there were roughly 10 Admirals and RM Generals to directly lead the 'core' naval service of some 30,000 people, of whom 6 sit on the Admiralty board.
In rough terms thats the head of the RN (1SL), the head of the Fleet (generates the warships and deploys them), the head of the Naval Personnel and training side (2SL).
There is then a small number of supporting 2* posts linked to heading up specific areas where you need for various good reasons a senior officer. Most of these 2* posts are double or triple hatted - in other words, the incumbent gets to do three jobs that twenty years ago would usually have each had one person doing them full time. For instance the current Naval Secretary is the personnel manager for the RN, senior officer for Scotland/NI, and also the senior 2* to lead the Reserves.
The remaining 20 or so posts are for 'purple' jobs outside of the RN, but where the RN has an interest in filling them, for instance Chief of Defence Intelligence or some NATO posts.
Having had some exposure to these Admirals and other seniors, I'd say this. They work VERY hard, they get very few perks, their days start early and finish late, and they earn a fraction of what they could earn for posts with similar responsiblities in civvy street. They also exist from one job to the next, and if their post finishes and no suitable role exists, they are out of the service - something that happens a lot.
Frankly I find these tired arguments about Admirals pathetic. The total 2* and above plot for the Naval Service is roughly 0.1% of its total manpower, yet we act as if this is somehow a bad thing. More widely the total RN manpower figure for all OF5 and above still only comes in at roughly 350 people (so rougly 1% of naval manning or 350 people). Add in all the SO1s and you go up to roughly 1500 people, or 5% of Naval Service manning for all Commanders and above.
There are very few multi-billion pound industries out there withtens of thousands of employees, with such a tight top level of management. To add to this, there is a constant pressure to identify savings and reduce posts further.
In rough terms thats the head of the RN (1SL), the head of the Fleet (generates the warships and deploys them), the head of the Naval Personnel and training side (2SL).
There is then a small number of supporting 2* posts linked to heading up specific areas where you need for various good reasons a senior officer. Most of these 2* posts are double or triple hatted - in other words, the incumbent gets to do three jobs that twenty years ago would usually have each had one person doing them full time. For instance the current Naval Secretary is the personnel manager for the RN, senior officer for Scotland/NI, and also the senior 2* to lead the Reserves.
The remaining 20 or so posts are for 'purple' jobs outside of the RN, but where the RN has an interest in filling them, for instance Chief of Defence Intelligence or some NATO posts.
Having had some exposure to these Admirals and other seniors, I'd say this. They work VERY hard, they get very few perks, their days start early and finish late, and they earn a fraction of what they could earn for posts with similar responsiblities in civvy street. They also exist from one job to the next, and if their post finishes and no suitable role exists, they are out of the service - something that happens a lot.
Frankly I find these tired arguments about Admirals pathetic. The total 2* and above plot for the Naval Service is roughly 0.1% of its total manpower, yet we act as if this is somehow a bad thing. More widely the total RN manpower figure for all OF5 and above still only comes in at roughly 350 people (so rougly 1% of naval manning or 350 people). Add in all the SO1s and you go up to roughly 1500 people, or 5% of Naval Service manning for all Commanders and above.
There are very few multi-billion pound industries out there withtens of thousands of employees, with such a tight top level of management. To add to this, there is a constant pressure to identify savings and reduce posts further.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, good answers.
Good answers there. I wonder what kind of person Private Jet is and why he seems so bitter at the Navy? Most people who get up to being an Admiral have grafted pretty hard, to be fair to them, although I don't actually like some of them, at all. And the financial rewards for being a serviceman generally, they aren't that good really, in the grand scheme of things..(if its pay or money that annoys him so).
I can think of quite a few things that get my goat about the UK, waste of taxpayers money or whatever, more than this.
Such as blatant tax avoidance by major international corporations operating in the UK. Or politicians now and former accruing enough wealth to buy multi million pound houses. Or zero hours contracts for hundreds of thousands of Britons, and the misbalance of pay in the UK and all that that brings to our economy in general. Or VAT at 20%. I've had enough now.
I can think of quite a few things that get my goat about the UK, waste of taxpayers money or whatever, more than this.
Such as blatant tax avoidance by major international corporations operating in the UK. Or politicians now and former accruing enough wealth to buy multi million pound houses. Or zero hours contracts for hundreds of thousands of Britons, and the misbalance of pay in the UK and all that that brings to our economy in general. Or VAT at 20%. I've had enough now.
I think that PrivateJet's point is well made. I served with another nation for whose military it was perfectly normal to adopt local acting unpaid rank for many functions. I certainly think that consideration should be given to putting a ceiling on paid senior ranks within the UK military. That way the Brass could have as many appointments as it felt necessary but without undue expense for the taxpayer.