PDA

View Full Version : Validation of General Slots



Igloowhite
03-11-2013, 07:55 PM
Ran across this last week while researching archives at Air Force Historical Research Agency:

: History of the Directorate of Personnel Plans Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel Headquarters USAF 1 Jul -31 Dec 1983
Costs of Additional General Officers : In preparing for the upcoming budget cycle, the Force Structure and Policy Analysis Branch was asked to estimate the cost of converting one Colonel authorization to a general officer authorization. At present a congressional ceiling on general officer strength keeps general officer authorizations below the levels specified through grade tables. Those positions over ceiling are carried down as colonel authorizations. By restoring one of the colonels as a general officer, several costs change. Since general officers remain on active duty longer, active duty costs rise, but the longer active reduces accession levels and avoids some retirement pay. After retirement the general draws retired pay at a higher rate for a shorter time. The net lifetime cost from these various costs and savings was estimated at $195,650 (based on a 1% real discount rate) or about $28,000 per general officer added per year of additional active duty. This is not much more than the difference between average pay and allowances for a colonel and a general officer. Much of the savings occur early while costs tend to occur later. As a result the first six years produce a total net savings of $96,394.

Drackore
03-11-2013, 08:10 PM
Now if I were to accept that very generous amount (because we probably have too many Colonels as well) and multiply that by the amount of manpower wasted for their staffs and assistants and special aides and also add in their perks and privileges and pet projects...

What generous number do we come up with then?

Igloowhite
03-11-2013, 08:15 PM
Very appropriate question....

RobotChicken
03-11-2013, 10:03 PM
:clock Ford motor co would be :hurt over the loss of Lincoln limo sales. :car

efmbman
03-12-2013, 01:21 AM
For what it's worth, the numbers for USAF General Officers are interesting to say the least:

(The DoD statistics prior to SEP 2001 only show end-of-FY (SEP) numbers)

On average, the number of GOs has risen since 9/11, which is to be expected:
O-10: 11 to 13 (15 was the max post 9/11)
O-9: 36 to 39 (48 was the max post 9/11)
O-8: 85 to 93 (111 was the max post 9/11)
O-7: 145 to 145 (162 was the max post 9/11)

However, the COLs (believe it or not) dropped on average from 3,975 to 3,656. Fewer COLs, more GOs. Of all the Officer ranks to drop, CPTs took the biggest hit: 29,386 to 22,884 on average (-6,484). From O-3 to O-6, all took losses.

In comparison, all enlisted ranks took losses on average with the exception of only E-6 and E-4.

Don't think I am weird... everyone has a hobby. This is one of mine. I have compiled similar numbers for all branches.

tiredretiredE7
03-12-2013, 02:56 AM
Ran across this last week while researching archives at Air Force Historical Research Agency:

: History of the Directorate of Personnel Plans Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel Headquarters USAF 1 Jul -31 Dec 1983
Costs of Additional General Officers : In preparing for the upcoming budget cycle, the Force Structure and Policy Analysis Branch was asked to estimate the cost of converting one Colonel authorization to a general officer authorization. At present a congressional ceiling on general officer strength keeps general officer authorizations below the levels specified through grade tables. Those positions over ceiling are carried down as colonel authorizations. By restoring one of the colonels as a general officer, several costs change. Since general officers remain on active duty longer, active duty costs rise, but the longer active reduces accession levels and avoids some retirement pay. After retirement the general draws retired pay at a higher rate for a shorter time. The net lifetime cost from these various costs and savings was estimated at $195,650 (based on a 1% real discount rate) or about $28,000 per general officer added per year of additional active duty. This is not much more than the difference between average pay and allowances for a colonel and a general officer. Much of the savings occur early while costs tend to occur later. As a result the first six years produce a total net savings of $96,394.

The main problem with eliminating General Officer positions is you can't just take a few LtCols/Cols and promote them to GO in wartime. GOs take time to develop and this lack of development could result in an ineffective GO, IMHO.

grimreaper
03-12-2013, 03:51 AM
For what it's worth, the numbers for USAF General Officers are interesting to say the least:

(The DoD statistics prior to SEP 2001 only show end-of-FY (SEP) numbers)

On average, the number of GOs has risen since 9/11, which is to be expected:
O-10: 11 to 13 (15 was the max post 9/11)
O-9: 36 to 39 (48 was the max post 9/11)
O-8: 85 to 93 (111 was the max post 9/11)
O-7: 145 to 145 (162 was the max post 9/11)

However, the COLs (believe it or not) dropped on average from 3,975 to 3,656. Fewer COLs, more GOs. Of all the Officer ranks to drop, CPTs took the biggest hit: 29,386 to 22,884 on average (-6,484). From O-3 to O-6, all took losses.

In comparison, all enlisted ranks took losses on average with the exception of only E-6 and E-4.

Don't think I am weird... everyone has a hobby. This is one of mine. I have compiled similar numbers for all branches.

Interesting numbers. Are those including Guard and Reserve? If you've got it handy, what was our force end-strength at 09/2001 compared to now? From what I could find, it was about 357,000. It's now like 330,000. Some of them need to go.

RobotChicken
03-12-2013, 05:11 AM
'Some of them?' Make 'em all pay back cost over-runs on all projects they oversaw out of their retirement and consult jobs! Make all those 'wanna be' GO's think twice or three times b-4 selling us down '$hit creek' for that 'McMansion' on the golf course!! That is 'Treason' ......do we still have firing squads??? WE NEED IKE!!

garhkal
03-12-2013, 05:34 AM
For what it's worth, the numbers for USAF General Officers are interesting to say the least:

(The DoD statistics prior to SEP 2001 only show end-of-FY (SEP) numbers)

On average, the number of GOs has risen since 9/11, which is to be expected:
O-10: 11 to 13 (15 was the max post 9/11)
O-9: 36 to 39 (48 was the max post 9/11)
O-8: 85 to 93 (111 was the max post 9/11)
O-7: 145 to 145 (162 was the max post 9/11)
.

That's a sheit load of high level O's.. each one pulling in 100+ a year, plus staff, plus a large ass house etc..

Robert F. Dorr
03-12-2013, 09:41 AM
For what it's worth, the numbers for USAF General Officers are interesting to say the least:

(The DoD statistics prior to SEP 2001 only show end-of-FY (SEP) numbers)

On average, the number of GOs has risen since 9/11, which is to be expected:
O-10: 11 to 13 (15 was the max post 9/11)
O-9: 36 to 39 (48 was the max post 9/11)
O-8: 85 to 93 (111 was the max post 9/11)
O-7: 145 to 145 (162 was the max post 9/11)

However, the COLs (believe it or not) dropped on average from 3,975 to 3,656. Fewer COLs, more GOs. Of all the Officer ranks to drop, CPTs took the biggest hit: 29,386 to 22,884 on average (-6,484). From O-3 to O-6, all took losses.

In comparison, all enlisted ranks took losses on average with the exception of only E-6 and E-4.

Don't think I am weird... everyone has a hobby. This is one of mine. I have compiled similar numbers for all branches.

Very useful stats and troubling. Do you have comparisons to 1945, 1953 or 1973?

BRUWIN
03-12-2013, 12:22 PM
We are in the big mess we are in because we don't have enough generals to sort it all out.

Chief_KO
03-12-2013, 12:33 PM
The main problem with eliminating General Officer positions is you can't just take a few LtCols/Cols and promote them to GO in wartime. GOs take time to develop and this lack of development could result in an ineffective GO, IMHO.

If my memory of history is correct, Eisenhower started WWII as a Major, but became a 5-star within 5 years... Does the military (all branches) still have the legal capability to promote during war, but post war return a member back to their previous rank? Used to happen alot back in the 1800s early 1900s...Didn't Billy Mitchell go from General to Lt Col after WWI? Perhaps it is all different since we've gone all volunteer.

Pullinteeth
03-12-2013, 01:12 PM
Ran across this last week while researching archives at Air Force Historical Research Agency:

: History of the Directorate of Personnel Plans Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel Headquarters USAF 1 Jul -31 Dec 1983
Costs of Additional General Officers : In preparing for the upcoming budget cycle, the Force Structure and Policy Analysis Branch was asked to estimate the cost of converting one Colonel authorization to a general officer authorization. At present a congressional ceiling on general officer strength keeps general officer authorizations below the levels specified through grade tables. Those positions over ceiling are carried down as colonel authorizations. By restoring one of the colonels as a general officer, several costs change. Since general officers remain on active duty longer, active duty costs rise, but the longer active reduces accession levels and avoids some retirement pay. After retirement the general draws retired pay at a higher rate for a shorter time. The net lifetime cost from these various costs and savings was estimated at $195,650 (based on a 1% real discount rate) or about $28,000 per general officer added per year of additional active duty. This is not much more than the difference between average pay and allowances for a colonel and a general officer. Much of the savings occur early while costs tend to occur later. As a result the first six years produce a total net savings of $96,394.

So using that "logic" we could end Force Shaping today by promoting a few dozen more SMSgts to Chief....

Drackore
03-12-2013, 03:17 PM
So using that "logic" we could end Force Shaping today by promoting a few dozen more SMSgts to E9....

Fixed it for you.

imported_SergeantJack
03-12-2013, 03:43 PM
We need one more general officer like I need one more hole in my wang.

efmbman
03-12-2013, 09:45 PM
Interesting numbers. Are those including Guard and Reserve? If you've got it handy, what was our force end-strength at 09/2001 compared to now? From what I could find, it was about 357,000. It's now like 330,000. Some of them need to go.

Does not incluse the Guard and Reserve. Very different promotion authorities involved there.

For the USAF in SEP 2001 (end of FY) the end-strength was 349,272.
For the USAF in JAN 2013 (last report released) the end-strength was 329,809.

You were very close with your estimates!


Very useful stats and troubling. Do you have comparisons to 1945, 1953 or 1973?

Sadly, no. I am still looking but I am not hopeful to find anything official without a FOIA request. The oldest report that shows rank distribution is SEP 1994. I would love to know the ratio of Generals to troops in 1945 and compare it to today.

RobotChicken
03-12-2013, 10:53 PM
:typing Best I could come up with, not writing a book about it, 1500 Flag officers/16 million troops, today 964 Flag to 1.4 AD,1.4 reserve personal. :usa2

efmbman
03-13-2013, 01:24 AM
Before I forget... did any of you know that as of DEC 2012 (last published report for civilian personnel) there are 1,042 civilians assigned to the Joint Staff? Imagine how many uniformed personnel are there. In OCT 2010, the number of civilians assigned to the Joint Staff was 308.

I'm not making this up.

efmbman
03-13-2013, 01:25 AM
Before I forget... did any of you know that as of DEC 2012 (last published report for civilian personnel) there are 1,042 civilians assigned to the Joint Staff? Imagine how many uniformed personnel are there. In OCT 2010, the number of civilians assigned to the Joint Staff was 308.

I'm not making this up.

RobotChicken
03-13-2013, 01:32 AM
Around 4,000 when I researched my reply I believe. :frusty

Robert F. Dorr
03-13-2013, 01:46 AM
Sadly, no. I am still looking but I am not hopeful to find anything official without a FOIA request. The oldest report that shows rank distribution is SEP 1994. I would love to know the ratio of Generals to troops in 1945 and compare it to today.

In about 1990, I wrote a piece pointing out that we had almost as many general officers then as in 1945. I wonder if the numbers for 1945 are in the Army Air Force Digest.

RobotChicken
03-13-2013, 02:36 AM
In about 1990, I wrote a piece pointing out that we had almost as many general officers then as in 1945. I wonder if the numbers for 1945 are in the Army Air Force Digest.

See post #17