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??

Edited for accuracy.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

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?

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.

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...?

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.

'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.

Or how about you just start with one?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The problem isn't too many admirals, or air marshals, it's not enough boats, or 'planes.

Two great but very different posts in a row. Taken together they neatly top and tail the argument.

:D

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 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.

How much is the payroll then? I'd like to see it, and in comparison to other Government Departments, and perhaps a few roughly comparable civilian organizations, such as a shipping line, or an UK offshore oil company.

So if government departments are big spenders that's OK then is it? Private companies are another matter entirely....take up the wage bill with the owners.....the shareholders...not the taxpayer.

Too many officers?
 

To put this whole issue into perspective may I refer anyone who is interested to "Losing Small Wars" by Frank Ledwidge (pages 110 - 112 of the paperback edition). A very good read on many levels.

Well, it might work...until something goes wrong. I present the case of Brig Saunders, assassinated in Athens in 1999. Local, unpaid rank and his widow (quite rightly) argued for some years that she should receive a Brigadier's Pension on the basis that he was wearing the rank and doing the job when Nov 17 slotted him. I'm sure there are quite a few examples from AFG and Iraq where 'local' rank ended in a few tears. My replacement in AFG was Army and given acting rank because of parity with the US - it took quite a battle to persuade MS that this was necessary.

There is. But as Jim pointed out, the total numbers are miniscule. However, if someone is doing the job of that rank, what's wrong with paying them for it? (qv my earlier comments about Brig Saunders).

There is also a wider issue that culturally some people seem to think that if you are an SO1 or OF5, then that makes you an amazing officer who naturally should be in charge. Make them a 1 or 2* and suddenly they overnight become pompous airheads without a clue.

I'm not sure why we think lower ranks are somehow 'better'?

It's probably a political statement on one level or another. Accepting it's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, I'd wager most people that peddle this argument of cheaper is better either have a sense of entitlement (it's my taxes funding this and I want to pay as little as possible, hang the consequences, they are irrelevant to me) and therefore feel their opinion is automatically correct and should be adopted as policy regardless of the facts. Or they are in a civilian organisation that isn't doing particularly well and having been on the receiving end of cuts and freezes to stay afloat and thinks the public sector is bloated and ripe for plucking.

It's funny how none you rarely heard these claims of cheaper is better when the economy was booming and the civilian sectors were rolling in cash whilst the military scraped by.

But you are correct that rank doesn't necessarily equate to better. I can't remember where I heard it, it may even have been a movie, a VSO dressing down another officer and using the line I'm your superior officer, to which came the reply higher ranking yes, superior no :D

As some of you know, I've been away from the mainstream air force for a number of years and only keep track of my contemporaries in the NY Honours List or on Social Media. I continue to be amazed how some of them have got to SO1 and above (no doubt they think that about me...).

There are a couple of chaps who have recently 'friended' me. One is a Wg Cdr and the other a Gp Capt. They were distinctly average junior officers, not particularly bright, not particularly quick on the up-take, but worked hard and did a range of eye-wateringly dull station and HQ tours, did a secondary duty or two, a bit of charity work possibly, and perhaps with an operational tour thrown in (at least the Jubilee medals won't look lonely!). But, as senior officers? At best in industry or other government departments they'd make middle-management, just.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on them, and perhaps I need a dose of the 'real air force' to adjust my attitudes. I hope not.

I wonder what they think of you?

As I said:


I attended a Branch conference a year or two ago and and those who hadn't seen me since 2001 were firstly surprised to see I was still serving and secondly, amazed/jealous/uncomprehending that I had managed 3 full and rather interesting overseas tours in interesting locations (and Op tours as well), and bleated on about me being on the mythical 'overseas posting list'. Lots of narrowing of eyes and 'you jammy b&stard' fake banter.

But when I challenged them and asked why they wouldn't serve overseas, it was 'well, you see, the kids are settled' or 'the wife, she's got a good job at the Council' or, more accurately, 'well, I don't know if we'd like it' and the 'well, it depends if I get a Command and a NATO tour isn't good for my profile'.

The conference was more to do with communal wrist slashing and managing decline, rather than 'hey, we've got the 2nd most deployable Air Force in the world and we are still pretty good at kicking ar$e, and most other countries still look up to us to set the standards'.

I've worked with quite a few foreign air force personnel from all over NATO (and elsewhere) and I have to say, once you step away from the 5 eyes and FAF cabal, most other air forces are sadly lacking - in equipment, training, vision, staff capabilities and - dare I say it - uniforms!

What are the Russians like happy? Are they a good air force? Only thing I ever see of them (and ever want to) is on You Tube and the net. I haven't seen Russian aircraft since 1985, I think. on carriers in the cold war when they buzzed us (Bears, Bison's all that era..).
I think a lot of service people would be surprised how easy it is outside at work, if you get into the right job and groove...I grafted like a madman at times in the forces, for average money and some really indifferent/arse treatment at times...more fool me of course.
Actually, in retrospect its so different outside, it hardly stands up for comparison. You are expected to do so much as a serviceman...your trade or profession, incredible staffwork and IT...shooting....drinking to a professional standard, but keeping fit.. its endless. PJ would never get it.

I think that what Whenurhappy said will resonate with a lot of service personnel. My experience from the sharp end of the Air Force (SH Aircrew) is that the command structure didn't do much to assist me in my job and that latterly (2000 onwards) there was an increasing tendency by VSOs to burden the frontline with tasks that did little to enhance operational capability.....and often hindered it. I have no doubt that the top echelons could be significantly thinned out without detriment to operational output. There has been talk of multi-hatting but I think a root and branch review would reveal much nugatory or duplicated work. I accept the limitations of my lowly perspective but consistently had the impression that too many of my superiors were not task-focussed and as a result capability suffered.

.....than there are ships & subs??? We do suspect "job's for the boy's" - PJ

.....than there are ships & submarines??? We do suspect "jobs for the boys":=

Edited for accuracy.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

A very nice self perpetuating arse kissers club, at tax payers expense too! - PJ

Since PJ's profile doesn't tell us whether PJ owns one or flies one (or even whether he or she has nothing whatsoever to do with private jets), I suspect that he know he or she knows more than his or her fair share about arse kissing.:ooh:

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 - PJ

A statement that hit the highest level on my arrogance meter.

And oh, whilst writing, some cracking responses from those who clearly know what they are talking about.:ok:

Jack

If the part about eating Ferrero Roche confectionary and attending parties is dreaded by those who have to do it then I would like to volunteer. I can't claim great experience but like the character in Dickens "I am Willing".

I would humbly suggest that surmising that the military as a whole is exhibiting either complacency or arrogance wrt one's opinion, having voiced it solely on Pprune and collated the views of three whole (possibly military, possibly not) posters, might be viewed as as an extrapolation too far.

Would someone be kind enough to explain to an old much retired Sqn Ldr (04 in U.S. parlance when I was on exchange) just what an OF5 (Wg CD-R perhaps?) and an SO1 might be?

Thank you

O4 (US desig) Sqn Ldr / Lt Cdr / Major
OF-4 (NATO desig) is Wg Cdr / Cdr / Lt Col
OF-5 is a Gp Capt / Capt / Colonel

An SO1 is a Staff Officer of Wg Cdr level (SO2 is Sqn Ldr etc) which is often incorrectly used to refer to a rank across the board (i.e. flying or field job), rather than a rank in a STAFF post (i.e. HQ).

It's all rather tiresome frankly, as is this banal thread, started by a complete troll.

MSOCS - thank you and how true! I'm surprised the Mods let this thread get this far starting as it did by an obvious troll who, I now note, has dissapeared.

Thanks again

Referring to my previous posts, I never cease to be amazed by the banality of some of our senior officers (Wg Cdr/Gp Capts). They apply staff college '7 step' methodology to problem solving or use the latest management-speak technique learned on their correspondence course with Staffordshire University, but do they really think about the problems in wider, indeed global sense? Do they approach problems understanding the basic concept of accumulated risk at point of delivery?

I did a pretty high-pressure tour in town and I was blessed with good, hard thinking team mates, AD and Director; most have now left out of frustration with 'the system'. I've chosen my own course, yet daily I hit the key-board with my head out of frustration dealing with the friction of a sclerotic support system that is the antithesis of mission command. Why do we make daily life support - especially for those overseas - so hard? What company in Britain requires that you send a fax??????? What company insists that you serve 11 months unaccompanied in a 'hardship' post, but doesn't fly you home? Or book expensive travel through a contractor 'or you won't be refunded'? Grrrr. And it's not even Monday.


And relaxxxxxxxx

And at the risk of being controversial, I bet neither ISIL nor the Taleban bothered with the 7 step approach! Maybe that's how we defeat them - sign them up to staff college and wait for them to seize up and institutionalise!

My point exactly. Banal approaches to problem-solving by a banal cohort of senior officers who should have left years ago. Not all, but there are a lot of place-holders in the system even now. To be honest, I should place myself in that category as well.