Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by soleil, Dec 29, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
The comment below makes a good point I think, although even with a massive task like really shaking up the army is there a danger of there being too many cooks?
In my wee time I came across a manning doc that stated there were 1 Engr Orficers for 9 OR's.
This was in the SDR Options for change era, we only had 4 Orficers in the Sqn then and we should have had 7.
We did post out a few Junior Generals though.
Why post a link, without a brief synopsis, without your own opinion.
Is this good for debate.
My personal opinion is that there are far to many 'jobs for the boys', quasi-autonomous national government organisations and civil servants. Some deserve shooting, some don't. But what can an individual do? I'd liked that to be discussed as well.
In your own time, carry on.
soleil provides links to the news without offering her own opinion; she does a grand job over on RR and has obviously moved over here too. If you don't like it, feel free not to read the thread.
You could also ask why each subunit in the TA needs:
Permanent Staff Admin Officer
Asst Admin Officer
To look after 50-60 part time soldiers.
Part of the growth is due to jointery - more joint units equals more need for commands than previously. Also we continue to hold a lot of NATO posts (and if you think the UK is bad, try dealing with the insane NATO flags to post plot where its all about who has the most stars).
There is a need to keep senior military officers in a range of posts such as procurement teams and other organisations, mainly because the military like to have a uniformed head on these projects - if we removed the 1* leads from a lot of IPTs and other areas, and replaced them with civil servants, you would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions instantly.
Ultimately though we have this plot as we need to demonstrate to officers entering all parts of the army that they have a chance to achieve senior rank if they are good enough. Removing posts at the top will have a trickle effect downwards - if people don't think they're going to get promoted then they will walk. We have a generation of hugely experienced officers moving through the system at all levels now, and we need to be able to show them that staying in means career opportunities. If not, then the army loses its best and brightest, and we potentially end up with the 2nd 11 at the top.
There is a lot of job creation for the boys, also there are a lot of retd officers on the books. I worked at a unit where the chief of staff was a civvy (retd officer) who AGAI one of my soldiers. He did not like me walking into his office and ripping said document up in his face. Thats another matter for discussion elsewhere.
However, there are it seems a lot of empire building with the need for senior officers at each new created post.
Also it seems from the guy on the ground that on each new posting officer is promoted in rank, whereas junior soldiers get posted without promotion. I have only seen in 16 years a third posting Captain where the Captain has been posted three times without promotion.
All you need to do is be a complete sycophant at a Brigade post for a year to be promoted.
The promotion system for Officers has not changed a great deal, whereas the junior ranks has become harder to be promoted (for the right reasons).
As for IPT needing a military officer, that makes sense, however it has to be the right officer for the job, but because someone has headed an IPT for three years and brought a new system in means they will get promoted.
The system is open to corruption of the olds boys network always has always will be. There is also another subtext to this is the amount of retd officers who are in the system.
I would rather have someone who is an industry civilian captain than a retd officer who happens to be bezzers with a general.
The whole system is top heavy, scratch beneath the service and count in the retd officers and it is heavier than you think.
Obviously something wrong with that sub unit. I remember an inf coy with 200 on the books, perhaps 120 attendance at weekends and 80 plus on drill nights (this was about 20 years go though).
Like to or need to?
And that should depend on quality, not on the quantity of jobs offered.
MSR - Like or Need? Depends on the project and who is leading it - there are some projects where it makes sense to have a military lead - for others, do you really need a brigadier or Colonel to head up the "portable showers" IPT (for instance).
What you need is a good chief of staff - ditch the 1* and 1/2* leads, hand them over to CS who have spent their working lives doing procurement. Get a good military COS to handle what really matters, and continue to ensure that there is 2* military ownership of the business areas - result is significant savings, and arguably no real loss of capability.
As I suggested on another thread; we should recruit a lot less officers and give some of the subaltern posts to ORs, possibly a reintroduced WO3. Less officers to provide promotion paths for and better opportunities for ORs. Granted this will take a long time to feed through to the top, but it is a long term solution to the problem.
It stands to reason we have more Generals/Air Marshals/ Admirals than are needed for UK troops only.
We do not work in an UK only world, many of the UK's commitments are "multi-national" but apart from the USA, Canada and a very few others no-one else is prepared to commit large amounts of troops. Therefore you end up with large "hotchpotch" amounts of troops grouped together for a task and they need leadership, hence more generals. Also we need a voice when working alongside the yanks, hence more Generals. It aint rocket science.
Separate names with a comma.