Top heavy military
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
But as some do not serve at sea should they be called landperson, or perhaps soildier?
If my calculations are correct the RAF has almost exactly the same number of wing commanders as it does aircraft. It would have more aircraft than wing commanders were it not for the current surplus of the latter. So what? We have more AVMs than groups. We have more air commodores than stations. Pick any resource of which the RAF has fewer than any given rank and be baffled by it if you wish, but it is a meaningless analysis unless you indicate how you think the numbers should be related. Let me try quickly: a flying station with one squadron will have wing commanders in charge of the squadron, Ops Wg, Base Support Wg, Eng and Logs Wg, and there will probably be two in the medical and dental centres. So we're at 6 wing commanders before we even go off-station, into places like the engineering project team (probably at least two wing commanders per aircraft type), the Group staff (another one), the Capability staff (another one)... and this is before we even start considering places like operational headquarters, the MOD, deployed posts and the diplomatic network. And, of course, the fifty or so newly-promoted wing commanders doing their year-long staff college course.
Suggest some posts for deletion; I'm sure the MoD's financial scrutineers would take them away in a heartbeat if they could.
Suggest some posts for deletion; I'm sure the MoD's financial scrutineers would take them away in a heartbeat if they could.
Last edited by Easy Street; 30th Nov 2016 at 21:37.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street, I think Dave would prefer to see high responsibility, non-flying jobs, relegated to lower ranks where their lack of relative experience and clout renders them impotent to make decisions with authority, credibility and confidence.
Some folk really believe that just numbers of airframes are the benchmark of what we do?!!!
Last I heard, the Army has more Generals than Ajax AFVs. Hold the front page, I'm baffled!!!!!
Some folk really believe that just numbers of airframes are the benchmark of what we do?!!!
Last I heard, the Army has more Generals than Ajax AFVs. Hold the front page, I'm baffled!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Some folk really believe that just numbers of airframes are the benchmark of what we do?!!!"
Unless Lockheed Martin (you remember them msocs) can do otherwise, YES actually!!!
Unless Lockheed Martin (you remember them msocs) can do otherwise, YES actually!!!
I have to agree with glad rag - surely the whole point of the military is (for example) to use some ships to land some tanks while being covered by aircraft. Having lots of generals, admirals and air marshals all sitting around talking isn't really what the military's about (or maybe it is these days?)
I share Dave Unwin's bafflement. Can you really justify having a wing commander for each aircraft? Surely the clue's in the rank?
I share Dave Unwin's bafflement. Can you really justify having a wing commander for each aircraft? Surely the clue's in the rank?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I do know where one wg cdr had part of his job taken over by 3 lt col. The HQ burden down hill trebled and annual meetings became quarterly at one level and at the next doubled.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
The lt col who worked for me seemed to spend most of his time filing travel claims for the 53p bus fare to see someone in a different MoD building in Central London. So a 3:1 ratio seems reasonable.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MPN 11, ours insisted on vetting our planned expenditure to attend the quarterly meeting he had called.
His finance officer would return the approval and then would chase up copies of our duly filed claim.
As I filed my claim on line and she had access to the system I declined to comply. Another occasion she sent me a 2nd class rail warrant on the basis t2that the colonel travelled 2nd. I just paid and claimed the upgrade. Never any come back which reinforced my opinion of the waste.
His finance officer would return the approval and then would chase up copies of our duly filed claim.
As I filed my claim on line and she had access to the system I declined to comply. Another occasion she sent me a 2nd class rail warrant on the basis t2that the colonel travelled 2nd. I just paid and claimed the upgrade. Never any come back which reinforced my opinion of the waste.
Thud,
Have a read of 'How Defence Works'
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eWorksV4_2.pdf
And then consider how many people it needs to do all of the tasks necessary to end up with those ships, tanks and aircraft in the right place. Amazingly enough, all those generals, admirals and air marshals are not just sitting around!
Have a read of 'How Defence Works'
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eWorksV4_2.pdf
And then consider how many people it needs to do all of the tasks necessary to end up with those ships, tanks and aircraft in the right place. Amazingly enough, all those generals, admirals and air marshals are not just sitting around!
The two posts directly above yours have already given me a flavor of how UK defence works!
But seriously I know all that. The point that baffles some of us is that you used to have a lot more ships, tanks and airplanes than you do now, yet although you now have less ships, tanks and airplanes, you have more senior officers
But seriously I know all that. The point that baffles some of us is that you used to have a lot more ships, tanks and airplanes than you do now, yet although you now have less ships, tanks and airplanes, you have more senior officers
RLE,
I agree entirely. Although I spent most of my career as a fighter pilot, I later had to turn my hand to a myriad of other tasks. Controlling huge budgets, expensive aviation upgrades etc. The comparison with rank and equipment numbers is very shallow, but populist. We need many other skills to achieve the military task.Lets face it, although the pension benefits are good, what you have to endure in terms of responsibility, family disruption and often very real danger are streets and away ahead of our other public services and their pensions and benefits, which are much larger. Other less sympathetic readers might like to divert their attention on them.
I agree entirely. Although I spent most of my career as a fighter pilot, I later had to turn my hand to a myriad of other tasks. Controlling huge budgets, expensive aviation upgrades etc. The comparison with rank and equipment numbers is very shallow, but populist. We need many other skills to achieve the military task.Lets face it, although the pension benefits are good, what you have to endure in terms of responsibility, family disruption and often very real danger are streets and away ahead of our other public services and their pensions and benefits, which are much larger. Other less sympathetic readers might like to divert their attention on them.
Thud,
Year Officers of 2 star and up .... All Officers........................Other Ranks (ORs)
1975.....254....100%................ 46979.....100%...............295542..... 100%
2000.....150....59%.................. 32516.....69%.................175099..... 59%
2014.....130....51%.................. 27850.....59% ................131770..... 45%
So, no, we do not have more senior officers, we have fewer. Moreover, look at the way society now expects the military to take responsibility for things which, to be frank, we previously did little about: Health & Safety, Airworthiness, Training to mandated SQEP levels (outside war roles), PR, IT, Environment, to name but a few.
On top of this, senior management levels have reduced to a greater extent than officers as a whole. Not as much as ORs, I admit, but many of those roles have been taken by contractors, the contracts of whom require oversight and management.
In sum, the cry that we 'have more admirals than ships' invariably comes from those who have no idea what the modern business of defence really entails. Last week, I spoke to a one star officer who is responsible and accountable for almost £900M of spend per year. How much would you pay someone in civvy street for such responsibility? Probably more than the £100K per annum that this individual gets. And whoever did the job would probably not spend the 60 hour week that my colleague does every week. So why don't we use remuneration as a better yardstick for measuring value for money from our military leaders?
Thomas Buberl is the Chief Executive of AXA, a company of 160,000 employees, roughly the same size as the British military. He gets around £2.5M per year. ACM Stu Peach, CDS, gets one tenth of that, while he himself gets over £50,000 more than the next most senior military officer (ignoring medical specialists). So if you think military leadership is expensive...see a doctor!
References:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eport_2014.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ccessible_.pdf
Year Officers of 2 star and up .... All Officers........................Other Ranks (ORs)
1975.....254....100%................ 46979.....100%...............295542..... 100%
2000.....150....59%.................. 32516.....69%.................175099..... 59%
2014.....130....51%.................. 27850.....59% ................131770..... 45%
So, no, we do not have more senior officers, we have fewer. Moreover, look at the way society now expects the military to take responsibility for things which, to be frank, we previously did little about: Health & Safety, Airworthiness, Training to mandated SQEP levels (outside war roles), PR, IT, Environment, to name but a few.
On top of this, senior management levels have reduced to a greater extent than officers as a whole. Not as much as ORs, I admit, but many of those roles have been taken by contractors, the contracts of whom require oversight and management.
In sum, the cry that we 'have more admirals than ships' invariably comes from those who have no idea what the modern business of defence really entails. Last week, I spoke to a one star officer who is responsible and accountable for almost £900M of spend per year. How much would you pay someone in civvy street for such responsibility? Probably more than the £100K per annum that this individual gets. And whoever did the job would probably not spend the 60 hour week that my colleague does every week. So why don't we use remuneration as a better yardstick for measuring value for money from our military leaders?
Thomas Buberl is the Chief Executive of AXA, a company of 160,000 employees, roughly the same size as the British military. He gets around £2.5M per year. ACM Stu Peach, CDS, gets one tenth of that, while he himself gets over £50,000 more than the next most senior military officer (ignoring medical specialists). So if you think military leadership is expensive...see a doctor!
References:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eport_2014.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ccessible_.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
The trouble there is you are comparing military to civilian companies who answer to their shareholders and their renumeration is profit based and not the civil service.
So? Do you not think that the skills required to run the British Military, ensuring the defence of this country in a volatile political and global climate, while balancing a £35Bn budget comprising projects that can take 20 years to go from concept to operations is not as challenging as creating shareholder value??
RLE and others, I know why you're reluctant to answer my question - but I'll try one more time. Your data suggests that you have approx 50% fewer 2stars than you did in 1975. I accept that, but I'd be prepared to bet a considerable amount of money that the amount of airplanes you have has reduced by a lot more than 50% over the same time period.
True, or false?
True, or false?
The airframes may reduce, but the overarching roles and responsibilities most certainly have not. We could stop doing operations, logistics, manpower planning, engineering support, intelligence, training etc and save lots of 1* and above posts, but I think the effects may be substantial.
Just because you have less kit, does not mean you can switch off the underpinning J1-9 issues that need to be done.
Perhaps a better question is if people think there are too many 2* posts, perhaps they can specifically name posts that they think can safely be gotten rid of? My experience is that lots of people moan, few people ever come up with specifics. I wonder why...
Just because you have less kit, does not mean you can switch off the underpinning J1-9 issues that need to be done.
Perhaps a better question is if people think there are too many 2* posts, perhaps they can specifically name posts that they think can safely be gotten rid of? My experience is that lots of people moan, few people ever come up with specifics. I wonder why...