Top heavy military
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Top heavy military
It looks like the press are finally cottoning on to the facts.
Sky Views: Too few ships and too many admirals?
Sky Views: Too few ships and too many admirals?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the artcle:-
I should say that I've gone back only as far as the 2010 SDSR. That seemed a sensible junction to me, because that was the moment the UK's Armed Forces were dramatically cut in size to fill a £38 billion budget black hole. I wanted to examine the effect those cuts in manpower have had on the most senior ranks.According to October's Personnel report, the current size of the Army is 84,490 (down from 106,000 in 2011), Royal Navy 32,500 (down from 37,660) and Royal Air Force 33,270 (down from 42,460).
For what it's worth the total size of Britain's military in 2011 was 180,000 and is now 150,250.
This is where it starts to get interesting.
In 2011, just after that brutal SDSR and before the cuts really started to dig in, there were 32 Admirals, 58 Generals and 37 Air Marshals.
In the five years since, the Army has shrunk by 20.2%, the RAF by 21.6% and the Navy is 13.7% smaller.
It would therefore be reasonable to expect the number of senior officers to have followed a similar pattern, wouldn't it?
Today, there are 36 Admirals (+4), 57 Generals (-1) and 37 Air Marshals (no change). So on paper, as the three forces have dwindled considerably in manpower size, the number of top officers haven't.
So where has the shrinkage occurred? I carried out the same exercise, but amongst the lower ranks.
In the same five years, the total number of junior ranks has shrunk in all three services - in the Navy by 15%, the Army by 22% and the RAF by 21%.
That is broadly in line with the overall reduction - the kind of pattern you'd expect to see, but a completely different story to that at the top of the food chain.
In fairness the figures are a little harsh on the Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals. What they can't show is the soft power and leadership those men (and with just three exceptions, they are only men) deliver around the world.
That is harder to quantify, making the raw data rather clumsy and only part of the picture. But perception is everything.
I have met many of the top brass and some of them are truly impressive, but for the number of Admirals to have increased whilst the overall size of the Navy has decreased, well that's really not cool.
I should say that I've gone back only as far as the 2010 SDSR. That seemed a sensible junction to me, because that was the moment the UK's Armed Forces were dramatically cut in size to fill a £38 billion budget black hole. I wanted to examine the effect those cuts in manpower have had on the most senior ranks.According to October's Personnel report, the current size of the Army is 84,490 (down from 106,000 in 2011), Royal Navy 32,500 (down from 37,660) and Royal Air Force 33,270 (down from 42,460).
For what it's worth the total size of Britain's military in 2011 was 180,000 and is now 150,250.
This is where it starts to get interesting.
In 2011, just after that brutal SDSR and before the cuts really started to dig in, there were 32 Admirals, 58 Generals and 37 Air Marshals.
In the five years since, the Army has shrunk by 20.2%, the RAF by 21.6% and the Navy is 13.7% smaller.
It would therefore be reasonable to expect the number of senior officers to have followed a similar pattern, wouldn't it?
Today, there are 36 Admirals (+4), 57 Generals (-1) and 37 Air Marshals (no change). So on paper, as the three forces have dwindled considerably in manpower size, the number of top officers haven't.
So where has the shrinkage occurred? I carried out the same exercise, but amongst the lower ranks.
In the same five years, the total number of junior ranks has shrunk in all three services - in the Navy by 15%, the Army by 22% and the RAF by 21%.
That is broadly in line with the overall reduction - the kind of pattern you'd expect to see, but a completely different story to that at the top of the food chain.
In fairness the figures are a little harsh on the Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals. What they can't show is the soft power and leadership those men (and with just three exceptions, they are only men) deliver around the world.
That is harder to quantify, making the raw data rather clumsy and only part of the picture. But perception is everything.
I have met many of the top brass and some of them are truly impressive, but for the number of Admirals to have increased whilst the overall size of the Navy has decreased, well that's really not cool.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
HH, on full pay?
Interestingly the manning pyramid has one admiral/air marshal per 900 men.
I wonder how many VSO deliver hard power as opposed to the soft power alluded to above?
Interestingly the manning pyramid has one admiral/air marshal per 900 men.
I wonder how many VSO deliver hard power as opposed to the soft power alluded to above?
Certainly in the RAF, quite a few of the lower rank posts have gone because of the creeping cancer of contractorisation and the greater number of reservists, including FTRS 
.... Although there are currently 6 UASs still trying to recruit reservist QFIs, so the reservist job seems to be decreasing in appeal.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind....
But contractorisation isn't an option at Air Rank, so it's hardly surprising that the ratio seems skewed.
.... Although there are currently 6 UASs still trying to recruit reservist QFIs, so the reservist job seems to be decreasing in appeal.Oh dear. How sad. Never mind....
But contractorisation isn't an option at Air Rank, so it's hardly surprising that the ratio seems skewed.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2016 highest pay scale for a RN Commodore is 101-105k GBP pa. Couldn't see an admirals. What are they on pay wise?
What is it that irritates people about this (all these Admirals)? The pay? Its not that good in real terms.
What does a head-teacher at a school earn?
To put things into relative scale, a UK offshore welder can earn 90k pa, an electrician also. Don't know what an offshore pilots on. An OIM/ Sea Captain are on very good money usually tax free. What's a top cop on?
Not my job to defend Admirals because I don't really like them (I wish they had defended my pay in 2000 AD) but there's a lot of jealousy apparent sometimes.
What is it that irritates people about this (all these Admirals)? The pay? Its not that good in real terms.
What does a head-teacher at a school earn?
To put things into relative scale, a UK offshore welder can earn 90k pa, an electrician also. Don't know what an offshore pilots on. An OIM/ Sea Captain are on very good money usually tax free. What's a top cop on?
Not my job to defend Admirals because I don't really like them (I wish they had defended my pay in 2000 AD) but there's a lot of jealousy apparent sometimes.
What does a head-teacher at a school earn?
But there again if you sack 20 or 30 admirals, how many new grey boats can you buy? None.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"there again if you sack 20 or 30 admirals, how many new grey boats can you buy? None."
but we might get the one's we CAN afford a bit faster.............
It always struck me how, when a major war breaks out, within about two years a whole herd of SO's are terminated and the average age of commanders falls by about 15 years.....
but we might get the one's we CAN afford a bit faster.............
It always struck me how, when a major war breaks out, within about two years a whole herd of SO's are terminated and the average age of commanders falls by about 15 years.....
It would be interesting to see true manning pyramids. I have done tours where the total number of RAF under my command has varied from around 100 to zero. When at 'zero' I have had extremes of truly no staff to high numbers of RN, Army, foreign military, civil servants, civilian specialists and civilian contractors to organise/lead/manage/herd/report on. In one extreme I also had POWs to look after.
The simplistic view that officers are only there to lead personnel of their own service is just not valid these days, if it ever was at all.
The simplistic view that officers are only there to lead personnel of their own service is just not valid these days, if it ever was at all.
Threads like this really annoy me and seem based on ignorance and prejudice, not any factual arguments.
Lets break it down a bit - there are today approximately 30-35 Admirals/RM Generals in the Naval Service against a total manpower of roughly 32,500 regulars (Trained and untrained) and about 3000 reservists, 1500 RFA and 1000 civilians in NAVY Command. So roughly 38,000 people. That means that the total 2* and above contingent is a total of 0.1% of the entire Naval Service.
If you add in all the Captains, Commodores and Admirals together, then you have roughly 400 people - or approximately 1% of the Naval Service at the top 5 of 10 ranks in the Officer Corps. Thats not that many people.
In the RN the Admirals are split roughly 3 ways - you have about a third of them running 'Navy' Jobs - so Fleet commander & deputy, 2SL, NAVSEC, FOST, Ops/FOSM/FOSNNI (1 post for 3 hats) etc. That means roughly 10 Admirals look after the Naval Service of 38,000 people.
You then have another 10 or so in so-called purple appointments, that are rotational and filled by all three services - for instance Main Building posts, JFC posts (next CJO will be an RN 3*), or procurement roles.
Finally you have the NATO / exchange / Other posts which fill the balance - for example we provide senior military personnel in Naples (or did) or the old CINCLANT deputy job.
There are several things to note -firstly, a lot of posts are subtly downgraded -25 years ago the RN had 4 x 4* in its regular scheme (1SL, FLEET, 2SL, CINCVAHOME), plus rotational 4* posts in the HQs and elsewhere. Today it has 1 permanent 4* (1SL) and the VCDS post. Many posts are downgraded from 3*-2* or 1*-OF5 (for instance Captains now command shore schools that used to be run by Cdres).
The second point is that these posts exist because the military is a hierachy and needs people to command. If you start downsizing too much, you both squash the promotion ladder (e.g. make all Capts - Commander jobs) and delay promotion, leading to good people leaving, or you need to do what other countries do and create an interim SO1 rank (many European Navies have a 'senior Commander' post with 3.5 stripes).
You need to offer a credible career to keep people in, you need line management chain hierachies for reporting purposes, and you need someone senior enough to actually run things. What this does mean is that most 1* and above are seriously busy people. Many of them have 2 or 3 'caps' to wear that involves their time and effort and means their days are long (most Admirals I've met are in very early, home very late and working solidly 5 days a week with work on the weekend a regular issue too). Its not an easy life of gin and uckers.
Secondly the supposed 'benefits' that some people think they get don't exist. Most Cdres get an MA or PS at best, and no car/driver/residence. A tiny number of these posts attract a retinue (I think from memory it is 1SL, FLEET Cdr and possibly one or two others) mainly because the sheer amount of travel and hosting required means its better to have a professional do it and keep the show on the road. This is backed up by a Flag Lt and an MA at 2* level (but again no driver for the most part). I know friends in the commercial sector who are genuinely shocked at the paucity of perks for our most senior people, and how hard they are worked in return.
Finally, there is a real problem of what posts do you want to stop being Admiral posts and why? To downgrade a post means all manner of implications, some legal, some reputational, some making it harder to get access in future for engagement purposes etc. Every time this post comes up and I ask "Which specific 2* and above posts do you want to downgrade and why" the answer is always to the effect of "Dont know, but we have too many".
I would argue that we actually probably have too few 2* and above. This means their workload is too great, their ability to focus on deep issues and lead on them and take a decision is reduced, and if they are away on travel, then it can take a long time to get things done. I would personally suggest the RN would benefit from over time adding a couple more 2* posts, primarily to ease the burden and allow better leadership. Cutting for the sake of form does not always make a better organisation.
Lets break it down a bit - there are today approximately 30-35 Admirals/RM Generals in the Naval Service against a total manpower of roughly 32,500 regulars (Trained and untrained) and about 3000 reservists, 1500 RFA and 1000 civilians in NAVY Command. So roughly 38,000 people. That means that the total 2* and above contingent is a total of 0.1% of the entire Naval Service.
If you add in all the Captains, Commodores and Admirals together, then you have roughly 400 people - or approximately 1% of the Naval Service at the top 5 of 10 ranks in the Officer Corps. Thats not that many people.
In the RN the Admirals are split roughly 3 ways - you have about a third of them running 'Navy' Jobs - so Fleet commander & deputy, 2SL, NAVSEC, FOST, Ops/FOSM/FOSNNI (1 post for 3 hats) etc. That means roughly 10 Admirals look after the Naval Service of 38,000 people.
You then have another 10 or so in so-called purple appointments, that are rotational and filled by all three services - for instance Main Building posts, JFC posts (next CJO will be an RN 3*), or procurement roles.
Finally you have the NATO / exchange / Other posts which fill the balance - for example we provide senior military personnel in Naples (or did) or the old CINCLANT deputy job.
There are several things to note -firstly, a lot of posts are subtly downgraded -25 years ago the RN had 4 x 4* in its regular scheme (1SL, FLEET, 2SL, CINCVAHOME), plus rotational 4* posts in the HQs and elsewhere. Today it has 1 permanent 4* (1SL) and the VCDS post. Many posts are downgraded from 3*-2* or 1*-OF5 (for instance Captains now command shore schools that used to be run by Cdres).
The second point is that these posts exist because the military is a hierachy and needs people to command. If you start downsizing too much, you both squash the promotion ladder (e.g. make all Capts - Commander jobs) and delay promotion, leading to good people leaving, or you need to do what other countries do and create an interim SO1 rank (many European Navies have a 'senior Commander' post with 3.5 stripes).
You need to offer a credible career to keep people in, you need line management chain hierachies for reporting purposes, and you need someone senior enough to actually run things. What this does mean is that most 1* and above are seriously busy people. Many of them have 2 or 3 'caps' to wear that involves their time and effort and means their days are long (most Admirals I've met are in very early, home very late and working solidly 5 days a week with work on the weekend a regular issue too). Its not an easy life of gin and uckers.
Secondly the supposed 'benefits' that some people think they get don't exist. Most Cdres get an MA or PS at best, and no car/driver/residence. A tiny number of these posts attract a retinue (I think from memory it is 1SL, FLEET Cdr and possibly one or two others) mainly because the sheer amount of travel and hosting required means its better to have a professional do it and keep the show on the road. This is backed up by a Flag Lt and an MA at 2* level (but again no driver for the most part). I know friends in the commercial sector who are genuinely shocked at the paucity of perks for our most senior people, and how hard they are worked in return.
Finally, there is a real problem of what posts do you want to stop being Admiral posts and why? To downgrade a post means all manner of implications, some legal, some reputational, some making it harder to get access in future for engagement purposes etc. Every time this post comes up and I ask "Which specific 2* and above posts do you want to downgrade and why" the answer is always to the effect of "Dont know, but we have too many".
I would argue that we actually probably have too few 2* and above. This means their workload is too great, their ability to focus on deep issues and lead on them and take a decision is reduced, and if they are away on travel, then it can take a long time to get things done. I would personally suggest the RN would benefit from over time adding a couple more 2* posts, primarily to ease the burden and allow better leadership. Cutting for the sake of form does not always make a better organisation.
I know friends in the commercial sector who are genuinely shocked at the paucity of perks
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim Lad
Sitting (physically) closer to the higher echelons of the RAF than I have in previous years, I would have to say that your description applies pretty well to the RAF. With the advent of DII and mostly open calendars, the facts are there for anyone with a DII account to see.
What I don't quite understand is how the pay and pensions of our senior leaders are calculated. Are they still paid full wack on retirement? 80%? Or are those days long gone?
STH
Sitting (physically) closer to the higher echelons of the RAF than I have in previous years, I would have to say that your description applies pretty well to the RAF. With the advent of DII and mostly open calendars, the facts are there for anyone with a DII account to see.
What I don't quite understand is how the pay and pensions of our senior leaders are calculated. Are they still paid full wack on retirement? 80%? Or are those days long gone?
STH
They have never been pensioned on full salary and not sure where that tall tale originated. Their pension has always been pretty similar to everyone else's but tweaked to reflect their appointment salary and the rather quick exit if they don't get a subsequent post. The revised pension and tax rules have taken quite a bit of gilt off the senior salaries pension scheme.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Some posts, from S02 upwards are based on treaty equivalent ranks - ie a job done by a flt lt RAF or matched by major in some other national forces. At VSO level 2* is needed to fill a treaty 2* billet - some on rotation some because that post is always held by a Brit and needs that rank.
Sir Topham Hat - I think the rumour about the 100% salary extended to the tiny number of people who held/hold 5* rank. In the old days tradition had it that 5* officers remained on the active list for life and as such retained full pay. But, there was an expectation that you remain available for State and other duties too. I think the numbers of 5*s left must be barely 20 by now, if that, and they'll all be gone within 20 years.
These days when you retire you receive a pension and nothing else.
These days when you retire you receive a pension and nothing else.
These days when you retire you receive a pension and nothing else.
This link may be helpful, assuming of course that this is the latest info available:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...fitsAFPS75.pdf
Jack
This link may be helpful, assuming of course that this is the latest info available:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...fitsAFPS75.pdf
Jack
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threads like this really annoy me and seem based on ignorance and prejudice, not any factual arguments.
Uhuh.
Bit difficult to defend though when there are neither enough (or completely the wrong type) boats, ships or sailors to do the job(s) properly...still if you fancy a 3 month football refereeing course then a drafting to HMQE is the place to be...
Uhuh.
Bit difficult to defend though when there are neither enough (or completely the wrong type) boats, ships or sailors to do the job(s) properly...still if you fancy a 3 month football refereeing course then a drafting to HMQE is the place to be...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
What annoys and beggars belief is council chief executives that manage a district council who are paid more than the prime minister who must manage the whole country.
If your 2 or 3 star makes a wrong decision hundreds may die and he may face an international court etc
If your 2 or 3 star makes a wrong decision hundreds may die and he may face an international court etc