What's new
By:
Filters
Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Promotion freezes as cuts bite in Navy

McGrew

McGrew

Midshipman
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/navy06.xml

The Daily Telegraph reports (link above) Promotion freezes as cuts bite in Navy.

[marq=right]"But Lewis Page, a former Navy officer who wrote Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, an acclaimed book about MoD overspending, said cuts were necessary for the 1,100 Lt Commanders in the Navy because a "staggering" 17 of the rank were based ashore for every one at sea."[/marq]

While the enormous number of lt cdrs (always suspected as much) is staggering surely this cannot be right? I wonder what the attitude would be if it were petty officer to chief that was being frozen?
 
That story ony tells part of the Galaxy Publication that was released.

It also neglects to mention that CPO to WO Promotion is also affected as is selection for 2OE.
 
Not too sure what happened with the scrolling text - it read:
But Lewis Page, a former Navy officer who wrote Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, an acclaimed book about MoD overspending, said cuts were necessary for the 1,100 Lt Commanders in the Navy because a "staggering" 17 of the rank were based ashore for every one at sea.
 
I wouldn't pay much attention to Page, McGrew. He comes across as being a very bitter and twisted person who couldn't get his 2 1/2's!

So is it really a surprise that he has had a dig?
 
The thing is, if the stats published in the latter part of '06 are to be believed, then we have more Lt Cdrs than Lt's, which is wrong in any calculation. So dare I say it the reduction in this instance is neccessary!

However, there is talk we need all these higher ranking officers to compete at meetings with the other 2 services, especially those that wear a lighter shade of blue, who go into these events very high powered. As for people not being rewarded with Ship "drives", the way things are/will go they wouldn't anyway.

It's a shame the article didn't pick up on the fact that 2OE, WO's and CPO's will also be effected, because let's face, the Lower Deck could do with the boost, at all levels- from manning to drafting cycles to accomodation.

I am presuming, the money saved from this shedding of jobs will, or can't be used for these purposes, despite the Lower Deck, understandably, making up the majority of the Frontline- it is exactly what it says in the breif- a money saving c
 
There are too many Lt Cdrs' and most are really uniformed civil servants who will never go to sea again. But it should be handled honestly and fairly. This idea seems designed to p1ss people off so they leave rather than offer redundancy properly. I don't care for the argument that we need them to fight the other services as we should be preparing to fight the enemy and structuring our officer corp for sea service rather than for competing with the RAf or Army.
 
stumpy said:
There are too many Lt Cdrs' and most are really uniformed civil servants who will never go to sea again. But it should be handled honestly and fairly. This idea seems designed to p1ss people off so they leave rather than offer redundancy properly. I don't care for the argument that we need them to fight the other services as we should be preparing to fight the enemy and structuring our officer corp for sea service rather than for competing with the RAf or Army.
Click to expand...

I actually concur fully with your last Shippers!

However, the alleged make up of the meeting that caused us to lose Carriers in the 60's does make you wonder if there is something in the talk. But it would be a sad day indeed, (actually could it get even sadder?), if there were some truth in it.

Anyway, the point I think is the apparently underhand way that the required drawdown is being executed.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top