PDA

View Full Version : The Expansion of the Galaxy (General Officer Inflation)



efmbman
01-18-2013, 10:24 PM
On September 14, 2001, President George W. Bush declared that a national emergency existed (retroactive to September 11, 2001). This was in response to the terrorists attacks. This declaration was extended most recently by President Barack Obama on September 9, 2011 for one more year.

In conjunction with this declaration was Executive Order 13223 stating:

- Sec. 2. To allow for the orderly administration of personnel within the armed forces, the following authorities vested in the President are hereby invoked to the full extent provided by the terms thereof: section 527 of title 10, United States Code, to suspend the operation of sections 523, 525, and 526 of that title, regarding officer and warrant officer strength and distribution; and sections 123, 123a, and 12006 of title 10, United States Code, to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, involuntary retirement, and separation of commissioned officers; end strength limitations; and Reserve component officer strength limitations.

In layman’s terms, the laws which dictate the personnel strength of the armed forces no longer apply. The President can now direct the armed forces to maintain whatever size and composition he wants.

2001

Let’s first take a look at the totals of the services (Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force). For the month of November 2001, the DoD reported that there were 1,376,066 uniformed service members. That number is broken down as follows:

2946

The most glaring conclusion from this data shows that the Air Force requires 4,362 more officers than the Army to exercise command over 128,730 fewer troops. In addition, in this same month the services reported the following numbers for general officers:

2945

2006

During the War on Terrorism, each service experienced expansion. Here are comparable tables for November 2006:

2948

In comparison to November 2001, we can see that only the Navy decreased overall strength. In fact, Navy decreased in all categories. The Air Force showed an overall decrease in strength, but oddly increased the officers by 637 while decreasing enlisted by 8,453. The Air Force became more top-heavy during this time. The Army and the Marines both increased officers and enlisted. The Army added 4,147 officers and 19,449 enlisted for a rate of 1 officer per 4.7 enlisted. The Marines added 984 officers while adding 5,463 enlisted for a rate of 1 officer per 5.5 enlisted. Let’s look at the general officers for November 2006:

2947

In comparison to November 2001, we can see that all the services increased the number of general officers. The Navy reduced overall strength as well as officer strength, but added 8 flag officers in the process. Also, the Marines added only 2 general officers while increasing overall strength by 6,470 Marines. The Army increased overall strength by 25,248 and added 18 general officers. The Air Force decreased overall strength by 7,816 but managed to add 13 general officers.


(I must continue in the next post... this forum only allows a certain number of uploads per post. Hopefully no one will jump in the middle lol)

efmbman
01-18-2013, 10:28 PM
(Continuing...)

2011

As the War on Terrorism is winding down, we should now see trends of decreasing strength in each of the armed services. It would be rational to expect that all categories (officer and enlisted) would reflect decreases. Here are the numbers for November 2011:

2950

The Army gained 38,699 overall, but increased officers by 13,677. Over one-third of the total increase in strength was officers. The Navy continued the trend of decreasing overall strength losing 29,328. However, at the same time the Navy increased officers by 1,062. The Air Force decreased overall strength by 12,556 by losing from both officers and enlisted.

2951

In regards to general officers, the Army gained the fewest by adding only 3 generals. The Navy again added flag officers (6) while decreasing the overall strength. The Marines gained only 5 generals while adding 17,931 Marines. The Air Force decreased overall strength, officer strength and enlisted strength but added 15 generals. The Air Force has one general officer for every 1,096 airmen. The rates for all the services are:

ARMY: 1 General for every 1,688 soldiers.
NAVY: 1 Admiral for every 1,350 sailors.
MARINES: 1 General for every 2,238 marines.
AIR FORCE: 1 General for every 1,096 airmen.

THE COST

We cannot examine this situation without also including a discussion about the associated cost. Each of these service members gets a salary, and the totals are staggering. I based the estimated salaries on the average time in service each rank has prior to promotion to the next rank. For example, the average E6 is promoted with 8 years time in service. I apply the strength of each rank to the corresponding entry on the pay charts to determine the annual salaries.

Here is the cost of the commissioned officers for November 2001, 2006 and 2011:

2952

2953

From this data, we can see that personnel costs from 2001 to 2011 increased $15,073,728,274.80.
That’s $15 MILLION a year.
Officer pay increased from $9 million to $14 million while enlisted pay increased from $22 million to $33 million. We are paying the officers of our military $1.1 million per month.

I have an idea about where the DoD budget might be trimmed...

efmbman
01-20-2013, 03:10 PM
A few statistical trends noticed after closely examining the Air Force strength from OCT 2001 - NOV 2011:



CATEGORY
CHANGE


General Officers
+28


Field Grade Officers
-377


Company Grade Officers
-3931


Senior NCOs
-3493


NCOs
-97


Airmen
-12502



The Air Force decreased strength in field grade officer and below by a total of 20,400. The Air Force did add 28 generals to command this reduced force.

The high-water mark was AUG 2009 when the Air Force had 323 general officers in a total force of 329,771. That's a ratio of 1 general for every 1021 in the USAF.

I know this information has nothing to do with PT, the 2nd Amendment or misbehaving police officers... but I thought some may find it interesting or perhaps even alarming.

giggawatt
01-28-2013, 10:32 AM
Very nice research and very telling. Now, I need you to staff this up to congress for recomenndations and action.

Pullinteeth
01-28-2013, 02:10 PM
2946

The most glaring conclusion from this data shows that the Air Force requires 4,362 more officers than the Army to exercise command over 128,730 fewer troops. In addition, in this same month the services reported the following numbers for general officers:

Maybe if you fail to factor in the Warrent officer ranks....however, if you actually do factor them in....not so glaring.

efmbman
01-29-2013, 12:57 AM
Maybe if you fail to factor in the Warrent officer ranks....however, if you actually do factor them in....not so glaring.

Warrant Officers generally do not exercise command and control tasks. Some do. Most don't. Their primary role is to provide "quality advice, counsel, and solutions to support their unit or organization. They operate, maintain, administer, and manage the Army‘s equipment, support activities, and technical systems."

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/wocc/woprogram.asp#overview

JD2780
01-29-2013, 01:07 AM
In the AF generally speaking our officers are the arent exercising command. There are only so many command spots. Heck go to a fighter sq and see 4 or 5 Lt Col only one of which is the CC. WAY TO MUCH BRASS.

efmbman
01-29-2013, 01:17 AM
In the AF generally speaking our officers are the arent exercising command. There are only so many command spots. Heck go to a fighter sq and see 4 or 5 Lt Col only one of which is the CC. WAY TO MUCH BRASS.

I think all the services have that problem as of late. The Navy is closer now that it ever has been to having just as many Admirals as ships. Once Executive Order 13223 was signed, it has been a free for all for officers. I can't seem to find any reference as to how the situation would be resolved if ever that EO is not renewed. Layoff officers? Doubtful.

I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt whit the USAF, since it stands to reason that since all pilots are officers the USAF would be more top-heavy than the other services. Can anyone elaborate?

Pullinteeth
01-29-2013, 01:02 PM
Warrant Officers generally do not exercise command and control tasks. Some do. Most don't. Their primary role is to provide "quality advice, counsel, and solutions to support their unit or organization. They operate, maintain, administer, and manage the Army‘s equipment, support activities, and technical systems."

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/wocc/woprogram.asp#overview

And in the Army, fliers are often warrent officers...in the AF they are all officers... Your point?

F4CrewChick
01-29-2013, 04:53 PM
Great post efmb! You nailed it.

efmbman
01-29-2013, 10:31 PM
And in the Army, fliers are often warrent officers...in the AF they are all officers... Your point?

I already made my point.


The Air Force decreased strength in field grade officer and below by a total of 20,400. The Air Force did add 28 generals to command this reduced force.

As you can see, the basis of my point is that while reducing the strength of the USAF, 28 generals were added. I don't know how else to say it. I am talking about command.

efmbman
01-29-2013, 10:32 PM
Great post efmb! You nailed it.

Thanks - don't be a stranger ;) You are missed around here.

Pullinteeth
02-02-2013, 04:55 PM
As you can see, the basis of my point is that while reducing the strength of the USAF, 28 generals were added. I don't know how else to say it. I am talking about command.

I don't disagree with your point...I am merely saying that the raw #s of officers doesn't necessarily support your point... A LOT of our officers aren't necessarily in command-they fill other functions that in other branches are filled by WOs...

efmbman
02-03-2013, 12:23 PM
As we all know, Generals and Admirals come with a lot of overhead. I found statistics detailing sub-agencies of the DoD showing civilian employeees. Here is something odd regarding the Joint Staff:

2007 - 206 CIVILIANS
2008 - 211 CIVILIANS
2009 - 226 CIVILIANS
2010 - 308 CIVILIANS
2011 - 1,025 CIVILIANS

That's quite a large increase for 2011... What do you suppose all those new civilians are doing?

Quixotic
02-04-2013, 06:03 AM
As we all know, Generals and Admirals come with a lot of overhead. I found statistics detailing sub-agencies of the DoD showing civilian employeees. Here is something odd regarding the Joint Staff:

2007 - 206 CIVILIANS
2008 - 211 CIVILIANS
2009 - 226 CIVILIANS
2010 - 308 CIVILIANS
2011 - 1,025 CIVILIANS

That's quite a large increase for 2011... What do you suppose all those new civilians are doing?

Covering for the 1000+ Airmen who failed a PT test and got kicked out.

efmbman
02-04-2013, 09:47 PM
Covering for the 1000+ Airmen who failed a PT test and got kicked out.

I cover this in another thread...


These are the strength totals for enlisted members of the USAF covering the last 10 years, each ending on SEP 30:

SEP 2012 - 263,917
SEP 2011 - 263,542
SEP 2010 - 263,437
SEP 2009 - 263,351
SEP 2008 - 258,092
SEP 2007 - 263,372
SEP 2006 - 273,990
SEP 2005 - 276,117
SEP 2004 - 298,314
SEP 2003 - 297,219

While I agree 100% that the USAF should not farm out airmen to do the jobs that belong to another service, it does not appear that manning is dropping at this time. It's been very steady for the last 4 years (unless I misunderstand what you mean by manning..?)

There has not been a dramatic decrease in USAF strength. Yet the number of generals increased from 272 in NOV 2001 to 300 in NOV 2012.

efmbman
04-04-2013, 01:01 AM
Finally... the numbers for February were released today. Believe it or not, the number for flag/general officers is unchanged and remains at 924.

Endstrength for the DoD decreased by a whopping 44 troops.
Army: -498
Navy: +232
USMC: -209
USAF: +431