Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Establishment versus reality.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Looking at ECF introduction in 2011/12 the approved sanction for all the PDF was 70% for strengths shown in DF Establishments CS4. Key tech jobs on ships cannot live on 1.5 ratios, if you have to relieve singletons very often the relief is done by a person filling a shore side vacancy. I would press strongly for a 2 ratio but still think we need a better ratio to cover career courses and realistic sea shore ratios. The current strategy still does not reach Full Establishment so it is important that the allowed figures are being met in all departments with clear avenues of career/trade development. Wave type recruiting with succeeding training shut downs is totally unprofessional and leads to pissed off training by pissed off staff.
    +1

    At the time the DF ECF was decided there wasn’t a huge gap between the ECF and the actual strength at the time (by service and rank)

    Originally posted by trellheim View Post
    Really ? I thought we were working to a fully filled Establishment of 9500p + 4169r . There will be 800 PDF recruits this years - it was in the dail PQs I put up
    In fairness, it would (for the PDF). Assuming no one left and that it didn’t take 4+ years to be trained to fill some appointments. Retention is the bigger issue

    Comment


    • #32
      Naval Service Rank Establishment 6 7 75 15 226 180 402
      Naval Service Strength 6 8 73 14 172 114 510 ***
      Vacancies by Rank 0 -1 2 1 54 66 -108

      6 warrant officers and 8 SCPOs...and even at that one over establishment and yet short 110 POs and L/Hands... and 108 enlisted

      So we are short 211 people up to the rank of CPO......but all the top jobs are full....

      I don't believe for one minute we need in excess of 120 Lts and S/Lts,, when there are on average 2 appointment pership for Lts and 4 for S/Lts.

      And they wonder where the money is gone?
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
        Naval Service Rank Establishment 6 7 75 15 226 180 402
        Naval Service Strength 6 8 73 14 172 114 510 ***
        Vacancies by Rank 0 -1 2 1 54 66 -108

        6 warrant officers and 8 SCPOs...and even at that one over establishment and yet short 110 POs and L/Hands... and 108 enlisted

        So we are short 211 people up to the rank of CPO......but all the top jobs are full....

        I don't believe for one minute we need in excess of 120 Lts and S/Lts,, when there are on average 2 appointment pership for Lts and 4 for S/Lts.

        And they wonder where the money is gone?
        Thing about it the number of JNCOs has decreased (partially) because there have been promotions - this is good for the retention of these people and their families (it should also be good for the people who step into the vacancies their promotions create). That of course assumes there are people to replace them - and there isn’t.

        Comment


        • #34
          S/Lts is an interim rank overtaken by time so that all appointments of xo, gunnery, navigation officers, can be filled by Lieutenants eventually. Junior officers in the PDF are promoted to at least Capt. Army or Lieut. NS. so that you could have out of a hundred Junior officers 100 lieut NS and 0 Sub/Lieuts or 6o Lieuts NS and 40 Sub/Lieuts depending on service. As far as I can remember the Naval Establishment did go over a 1000 all ranks and now languishes at it's current strength. The ideal use of reservists should mirror the duties of trained personnel . Prolonged call-ups are required to get best use both ashore and afloat

          Comment


          • #35
            Prolonged call-ups are required to get best use both ashore and afloat
            Legislation required for that. The Dept have had many a chance and have run a mile every time, I often wonder about them.
            "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

            "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

            Comment


            • #36
              The ideal use of reservists should mirror the duties of trained personnel . Prolonged call-ups are required to get best use both ashore and afloat
              No...No and thrice no!!!!!!

              Not a slight at reservists by any means but reservists cannot be considered as part of the establishment of any organisation as they tend to be transient, take longer to train and often not available when required.

              Civilian employment will always be their primary consider, and rightly so, thus the NS can never count them as part of their actual establishment.
              If the legislators had grasped the concept of job security for reservists back in the early noughties there might have been a different end game regarding reservists, but they didn't and as a result the reserve element of the DF is just about notional at this point.

              Reservists are not a cheap alternative labour supply and should never be considered as such. If we can't pay the guys doing the job, we certainly should be trying to replace or even supplement them for people who do not have the same contractural obligations.

              S/Lts is an interim rank overtaken by time so that all appointments of xo, gunnery, navigation officers, can be filled by Lieutenants eventually
              Watchkeepers have always been S/Lts on OPV sized vessel. To say that all such appointments should be filled by Lts adds an extra layer of pay grades that there is no requirement for !

              The RN on minesweepers etc ran with Lts as Officers in Command.... but we had to create appointments for pay grades.

              We have to stop padding out pay grades and start ensuring that the lower earners conditions equal that of their peers.

              Ships after longer patrols need to be taken n charge by alongside crews to give the sea going crews rest from 1 in 3 duties and watches, people need to be able to get proper leave periods and have access to proper living conditions as opposed to living on ships while not at sea.

              That of course assumes there are people to replace them - and there isn’t.
              Promotions to fill vacancies and not having the backfill to fill the vacancies created by promotions is stupid.... too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Given a L/ Hand now makes what an A/B did ten years ago all thats happening is what happened during the 70's and 80s where vacancies were filled to keep posts open in the hope some brilliance might be recognised along the way. Hence we ended up with a generation of dead wood in the DF for many years, holding appointments they were never qualified for and couldn't be got out of thus blocking promotions.

              We have learned nothing
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                The figures I originally quoted were the strength as at 30 Sept 17 and are available here:


                Just a month later the strength (see above) dropped dramatically:



                The establishment is in the 2nd link and is unchanged.

                The 2nd link is the more up to date figure of the 2, it shows how the situation is even worse than the one I quoted for Seamen and JNCOs, the SNCO ranks have been sorted more or less - but as you said (and I agreed) a short fall there wouldn’t really effect ships or maintenance

                Right.
                The way I see it the NS isn't that badly off when it comes to Establishment V Strength, compared to the rest of the DF. Indeed there are some facts difficult to explain or justify.
                If people are promoted into vacancies it improves the picture a whole lot.
                Starting at OR3, a surplus of 84 people. Promote them and you now have a surplus of 18 people at OR4 rank. Promote this surplus to OR5 and now you only have a shortage of 36 Petty Officers. And can someone explain to me why there is an extra SCPO in the NS?
                Equally at officer rank, there are 22 extra OF1. Granted many of these are OUTs, but it does outline the huge wastage at junior officer level the NS is expecting. When promoted, there will only be a shortage of 3 Lt(NS). The big question though is how can it be that the NS has 5 more Lt Cdrs than it needs, and with this in mind, how come the NS seems to be struggling to crew one ship out of 8 at any one time, with a ninth ship on the way?
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  Looking at ECF introduction in 2011/12 the approved sanction for all the PDF was 70% for strengths shown in DF Establishments CS4. Key tech jobs on ships cannot live on 1.5 ratios, if you have to relieve singletons very often the relief is done by a person filling a shore side vacancy. I would press strongly for a 2 ratio but still think we need a better ratio to cover career courses and realistic sea shore ratios. The current strategy still does not reach Full Establishment so it is important that the allowed figures are being met in all departments with clear avenues of career/trade development. Wave type recruiting with succeeding training shut downs is totally unprofessional and leads to pissed off training by pissed off staff.
                  Apologies, disliked by accident. You're right on the money here. Great post!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                    No...No and thrice no!!!!!!

                    Not a slight at reservists by any means but reservists cannot be considered as part of the establishment of any organisation as they tend to be transient, take longer to train and often not available when required.

                    Civilian employment will always be their primary consider, and rightly so, thus the NS can never count them as part of their actual establishment.
                    If the legislators had grasped the concept of job security for reservists back in the early noughties there might have been a different end game regarding reservists, but they didn't and as a result the reserve element of the DF is just about notional at this point.

                    Reservists are not a cheap alternative labour supply and should never be considered as such. If we can't pay the guys doing the job, we certainly should be trying to replace or even supplement them for people who do not have the same contractural obligations.
                    FOCNS awarded NWCs to 2 NSR Officers in 2016

                    Watchkeepers have always been S/Lts on OPV sized vessel. To say that all such appointments should be filled by Lts adds an extra layer of pay grades that there is no requirement for !

                    The RN on minesweepers etc ran with Lts as Officers in Command.... but we had to create appointments for pay grades.

                    We have to stop padding out pay grades and start ensuring that the lower earners conditions equal that of their peers.

                    Ships after longer patrols need to be taken n charge by alongside crews to give the sea going crews rest from 1 in 3 duties and watches, people need to be able to get proper leave periods and have access to proper living conditions as opposed to living on ships while not at sea.
                    RN MCMVs currently have Lt Cdrs as OCs

                    Could be a 2 fold reason. The responsibility for a State ship, mission and crew warrants it (possibly) and the increase in rank of course means an increase in pay (making it easier to retain people).

                    If the NS had Lt (NS) as vessel OCs, the FOCNS would probably be a Cdr or Capt (NS) at most.

                    Absolutely agree but people aren’t getting the conditions they should get because the strength isn’t there. People aren’t joining & aren’t staying because of it. Bit of chicken and egg really.

                    Promotions to fill vacancies and not having the backfill to fill the vacancies created by promotions is stupid.... too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Given a L/ Hand now makes what an A/B did ten years ago all thats happening is what happened during the 70's and 80s where vacancies were filled to keep posts open in the hope some brilliance might be recognised along the way. Hence we ended up with a generation of dead wood in the DF for many years, holding appointments they were never qualified for and couldn't be got out of thus blocking promotions.

                    We have learned nothing
                    +1

                    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    Right.
                    The way I see it the NS isn't that badly off when it comes to Establishment V Strength, compared to the rest of the DF. Indeed there are some facts difficult to explain or justify.
                    If people are promoted into vacancies it improves the picture a whole lot.
                    Starting at OR3, a surplus of 84 people. Promote them and you now have a surplus of 18 people at OR4 rank. Promote this surplus to OR5 and now you only have a shortage of 36 Petty Officers.
                    Absolutely but that 84 includes recruits (not sure if there are any apprentices (probably some members of the TTS)). A fair few probably have less than 3 years service (not sure what the minimum service is to qualify for promotion (could of course be changed but needs to be considered).

                    Equally at officer rank, there are 22 extra OF1. Granted many of these are OUTs, but it does outline the huge wastage at junior officer level the NS is expecting. When promoted, there will only be a shortage of 3 Lt(NS).
                    Cadets aren’t OF1 they are OR3 (but I know what you mean and I would agree)

                    If I’m reading it right they are a OF1 for 3-4 years and are still OUTs during that period. So realistically very few of those are actually qualified to fill a Lt(NS) vacancy





                    Ref the supernumeraries. Not sure myself. Could potentially fill DFHQ or overseas positions. The officers could maybe tech officers maybe with fixed term promotions (not sure if that’s still done).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DeV View Post

                      Absolutely but that 84 includes recruits (not sure if there are any apprentices (probably some members of the TTS)). A fair few probably have less than 3 years service (not sure what the minimum service is to qualify for promotion (could of course be changed but needs to be considered).


                      Cadets aren’t OF1 they are OR3 (but I know what you mean and I would agree)

                      If I’m reading it right they are a OF1 for 3-4 years and are still OUTs during that period. So realistically very few of those are actually qualified to fill a Lt(NS) vacancy


                      Ref the supernumeraries. Not sure myself. Could potentially fill DFHQ or overseas positions. The officers could maybe tech officers maybe with fixed term promotions (not sure if that’s still done).
                      I don't think apprentices are apprentice rank in the NS any more. More often lately is an O/Sea being sent on tech training after passing out to Engineering branch.
                      I took the cadets out of the OR3 category just for clarity, but their transition to OF1 is enivitable. They will never be an A/Sea. The only alternative for them is the other side of the main gate.
                      There isn't that many positions held by LT(NS) that a Sub Lt cannot do aboard ship. The line between ensign and Sub Lt has become very blurred lately, with many cadets now being commissioned as Sub Lt. What it means is that where in the past, only the XO was an LT(NS) nowdays, the majority can be, with a Sub Lt still OUT where in the past the Nav would bave been the only subbie. It used to take 3 years to get from Cadet to watchkeeping officer. The clock was ticking. Those who were unsuccessful ended up wearing a green uniform as an admin officer in some quiet CSS unit. Many a Bad Naval cadet made a mediocre LSB 2/lt.

                      Re supernumaries: An appointment is an appointment. The only thing I can suggest is Maternity leave. The average female officer reaches Lt Cdr around the same time in her life that she decides to have a family.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                        I don't think apprentices are apprentice rank in the NS any more. More often lately is an O/Sea being sent on tech training after passing out to Engineering branch.
                        if they joined as an apprentice their rank is apprentice (very very few in the DF anymore think the AC is the only exception). If they are on the Trainee Technicians Scheme then they are A/S.


                        I took the cadets out of the OR3 category just for clarity, but their transition to OF1 is enivitable. They will never be an A/Sea. The only alternative for them is the other side of the main gate.
                        they join the DF as a 3*/ AS for the duration of they Cadetship. The actual rank they hold is Cadet (AFAIK).

                        There isn't that many positions held by LT(NS) that a Sub Lt cannot do aboard ship.

                        The line between ensign and Sub Lt has become very blurred lately, with many cadets now being commissioned as Sub Lt.

                        What it means is that where in the past, only the XO was an LT(NS) nowdays, the majority can be, with a Sub Lt still OUT where in the past the Nav would bave been the only subbie. It used to take 3 years to get from Cadet to watchkeeping officer. The clock was ticking. Those who were unsuccessful ended up wearing a green uniform as an admin officer in some quiet CSS unit. Many a Bad Naval cadet made a mediocre LSB 2/lt.
                        They send 2 years as a Cadet (this includes first year in NMCI). People who are already graduates are commissioned as S/Lt (school leavers as Ensigns). They are then OUTs for another 2-3 years. Only after they have their NWC can they fill the Nav, Gunnery, Comms etc vacancy on a ship.

                        Re supernumaries: An appointment is an appointment. The only thing I can suggest is Maternity leave. The average female officer reaches Lt Cdr around the same time in her life that she decides to have a family.
                        could be or career break

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If the NS had Lt (NS) as vessel OCs, the FOCNS would probably be a Cdr or Capt (NS) at most.
                          We even had Lt Cdrs OC of MTBs and up to the 70s, FOCNs was a Captains appointment

                          Many a Bad Naval cadet made a mediocre LSB 2/lt.
                          Or adversely many a bad LSB officer held a Lt. Cdr appointment in the NS!

                          NS never had apprentice ranks, persons came from the Apprentice school hold O/ or A Rank depending on level of qualification, if in the case of some guys were granted apprenticeships while serving they were granted O/ grade and then A/ grade

                          FOCNS awarded NWCs to 2 NSR Officers in 2016
                          Two since 1947....I suppose its progress.....now ask them can they deploy to the med for three months.....
                          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            We even had Lt Cdrs OC of MTBs and up to the 70s, FOCNs was a Captains appointment
                            this is true

                            NS never had apprentice ranks, persons came from the Apprentice school hold O/ or A Rank depending on level of qualification, if in the case of some guys were granted apprenticeships while serving they were granted O/ grade and then A/ grade
                            thanks I knew it sounded wrong

                            ...now ask them can they deploy to the med for three months.....
                            they don’t need to be able to but if they could cover a (home) patrol or 2 during the year that means 1 or 2 people can take their leave

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Naval manning

                              Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                              No...No and thrice no!!!!!!

                              Not a slight at reservists by any means but reservists cannot be considered as part of the establishment of any organisation as they tend to be transient, take longer to train and often not available when required.

                              Civilian employment will always be their primary consider, and rightly so, thus the NS can never count them as part of their actual establishment.
                              If the legislators had grasped the concept of job security for reservists back in the early noughties there might have been a different end game regarding reservists, but they didn't and as a result the reserve element of the DF is just about notional at this point.

                              Reservists are not a cheap alternative labour supply and should never be considered as such. If we can't pay the guys doing the job, we certainly should be trying to replace or even supplement them for people who do not have the same contractural obligations.



                              Watchkeepers have always been S/Lts on OPV sized vessel. To say that all such appointments should be filled by Lts adds an extra layer of pay grades that there is no requirement for !

                              The RN on minesweepers etc ran with Lts as Officers in Command.... but we had to create appointments for pay grades.

                              We have to stop padding out pay grades and start ensuring that the lower earners conditions equal that of their peers.

                              Ships after longer patrols need to be taken n charge by alongside crews to give the sea going crews rest from 1 in 3 duties and watches, people need to be able to get proper leave periods and have access to proper living conditions as opposed to living on ships while not at sea.



                              Promotions to fill vacancies and not having the backfill to fill the vacancies created by promotions is stupid.... too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Given a L/ Hand now makes what an A/B did ten years ago all thats happening is what happened during the 70's and 80s where vacancies were filled to keep posts open in the hope some brilliance might be recognised along the way. Hence we ended up with a generation of dead wood in the DF for many years, holding appointments they were never qualified for and couldn't be got out of thus blocking promotions.

                              We have learned nothing
                              Many frontline services , including the BA, use reservists in combat units. If reservists are NOT a functional reserve then disband such forces and
                              institute a 3year lottery conscription. What do we see as the use of 4169 reservist strength.?

                              I was a Lieut. watchkeeper and there were NO S/Lieut watchkeepers until a class of 4 Cadets came through, and eventually they became Lieuts in due time. In the Naval Service qualified watchkeepers can be of either rank as it is not specifically only a Sub's job.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                Many frontline services , including the BA, use reservists in combat units. If reservists are NOT a functional reserve then disband such forces and
                                institute a 3year lottery conscription. What do we see as the use of 4169 reservist strength.?

                                I was a Lieut. watchkeeper and there were NO S/Lieut watchkeepers until a class of 4 Cadets came through, and eventually they became Lieuts in due time. In the Naval Service qualified watchkeepers can be of either rank as it is not specifically only a Sub's job.
                                I assume that the majority of current S/Lt’s wouldn’t hold NWC as it takes so long to get it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X