UK Military Readiness is SOPHISTICATED - Discuss

[GengisKhant]

The following drivel has recently been released by our esteemed Armed Forces Minister... Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP...

Any comments?

"The Public Affairs Committee report into Military Readiness describes the MoDs system for defining measuring and reporting readiness as sophisticated. The report was welcomed by Armed Forces Minister, the Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP.
However, Mr Ingram highlighted a number of areas in which the PAC report does not reflect the current UK Forces readiness situation.
"It would simply not be true to interpret the report to say that about a third of Britains Armed Forces would struggle to deploy. At the moment no forces are reporting critical weaknesses", he said.
"No military in the world is designed to have 100 per cent of its forces at full readiness at any one time. As of last September 79 per cent of Forces were ready to deploy with no serious or critical weaknesses. Performance continues to improve and we confidently expect to exceed the target we have agreed with the Treasury of an annual average of 73 per cent by April 2008," he added.
"The Committee is right to highlight continuing likelihood that greatest operational demands will be made on the Army and some areas of the RAF and that we consequently focus efforts on those assets, but, as the committee recognises, this has not prevented the Royal Navy carrying out its operational tasks."
Last June the NAO praised the MoD for the good system it has in place which compares well with other countries systems. The NAO noted that the system has the confidence of our military commanders, has proven itself on recent operations and is continuously improving.
Mr Ingram said:
"Given the overwhelmingly positive report into military readiness produced by the National Audit Office last June I find it somewhat surprising that the Public Accounts Committee can look at the same evidence and produce the report they have produced today.
"Recent operations prove we can deploy the right number of forces to achieve our objectives. In June the National Audit Office was absolutely clear that the MOD has a good system for reporting the readiness of the Armed Forces and has a good understanding of risks to readiness and good plans in place to mitigate them.
"The impact of current operations on the Armed Forces is judged by the Chiefs of Staff to be manageable and the Armed Forces as a whole remain ready for future operations."

[MrBernoulli]

"The impact of current operations on the Armed Forces is judged by the Chiefs of Staff to be manageable and the Armed Forces as a whole remain ready for future operations."

Oh .... my .... God. These folk just won't put their heads above the parapet, will they? So sad, so sad. Recently left HM service, and on the outside, looking in, it just looks so sad.

[dessert_flyer]

If when they say deployable, they mean stick a load of our forces on a plane and take them to the dessert, and let them get on with whatever they need to do, with or without the correct kit and training (i dont include IRT AND IDT in that as nothing learntin those lessons) then those targets will be correct. However if they mean correctly trained and kitted troops, then i think that somewhat falls short of the mark. Anyfool can put troops on a plane (we cant even manage that a lot of the time) and say they are deployable, but to do it correctly is not quite so easy. Fortunately morale is good so theirs no need to worry.

[4Foxtrot]

Agreed. Total king sh:mad: . But to show you can prove anything with statistics:

This means that 79% of the Armed Forces could have moderately severe capability shortfalls while 21% have critical shortfalls that could make them combat ineffective. (And what if that 21% includes front-line units, as opposed to REMFs like me?)

I'll play my ignorance card here and ask what the Public Accounts Committee knows about defence readiness? Was anyone out there asked how ready their unit was? Defence Intranet strikes again... :yuk:

[dallas]

Strictly speaking, by tapping into the majority of the Forces 'can-do' attitudes, it is correct to say our operations are, for the most part, manageable - because we're doing them. Moreover our commanders are only as good as the information they're fed, which tends not to focus too heavily on the nitty-gritty of how a particular aircraft frame-swapped 3 times, delayed 4 days and went u/s at destination. At their strategic level, 'Ex/Op Blah' was achieved. [late and with a p1ssed-off customer, but still achieved].

The problem is, as I see it, twofold.

Firstly, the Govt - none of whom have any mil experience - have seen HM's finest perform admirably in all they have been tasked with. This was despite cuts in funding and people. Also don't forget, with the exception of a rogue video or the death of a squaddie, defence is one of those non-headline grabbing things that rarely features day-to-day at cabinet meetings. Of the other headings that are probably more prominent - health, education, immigration, etc, it is widely accepted that Government organisations are classic unaccountable generators of waste. So, non-mil politician sees the Forces as just another arm of the Govt and therefore prone to waste, which to some degree (AOCs, flypasts etc) is true.

The mismatch occurs when the ethos of the Forces - the can-do attitude - isn't taken into account. Where, say a health worker, fireman, prison officer, teacher etc will just say 'can't do' when the tools, pay or conditions don't suit, the military don't have that option, which means in comparison servicemen/women's goodwill - you could call it x-factor - is being taken for granted. But more and more it's being depended on - that is the problem.

For short periods when called upon - CORPORATE, GRANBY, TELIC - it is reasonable for the Forces to expect increased workloads, discomfort, detachments and to generally move up a gear. The Forces are, in basic form, an insurance policy. But if the operational accelerator is nearly always foot down, compounded by the erosion of quality of life, the essential ingredient - the x-factor - will drain away. People are increasingly balancing their personal lives against mediocre reward (certainly at shop floor) and choosing to leave the Forces. It is only a matter of time before the engine seizes.

Many - and I mean the majority of - people I know are fed-up with the increased take and reduced give and are looking to exit at their next option point. I'm not even sure what could be done now to reverse this. In, I estimate, 5 years time the RAF is going to be in a odd, but not necessarily precarious position. It will be a temporary job for many and not the life career it was. Provided we accept that and adapt to it, we may be okay but if we don't, the essential x-factor the Govt have come to rely upon might be missing one day when the country needs to call on it. Put simply, when the Forces become 'just another job' we stand to field an NHS-esque organisation on the battlefield. Anybody see the problem?

The difference between most other Govt departments and the military is if the likes of the NHS fail to perform it's politically embarrassing.

If the military fail it's terminal for more than just the troops on the ground...

[airborne_artist]

Dallas

If the military fail it's terminal for more than just the troops on the ground...
It's worse than that - if the public services fail (NHS, police etc), those directly impacted are UK taxpayers, but not the providers of that failed service, hence the embarrassed politicians.

If Defence fails (or parts of it), the first casualties will be our own sailors/soldiers/airman and the next will be foreign citizens - but very few members of the public will be affected, hence very little embarrassment, and Joe Public won't know why the operation failed.

Thus a failure in Defence will mostly hurt the "service provider", but probably not the politicians.

[FrogPrince]

From my limited understanding, most of the source data for these assessments for the green army is captured using a database system on the MoD's Intranet(s).

So...

a. The system does not capture the data accurately.
b. That data is accurately captured but is massaged before it reaches the MoS/SoS.
c. The data is unreliable (turkeys don't vote for Christmas) and is not audited.
d. The data is accurate, it is passed on in an unembellished format but is then ignored (la, la, la - not listening).

The MoS's statement does not seem to tally with personal experience and anecdotal information reported elsewhere. Three wheels on our wagon and we're still rolling along - just !

Mmm...

[JessTheDog]

The MoD's system for spouting bullsh!t and lies is sophisticated.

Press gang Euan Bliar and send him off to Iraq in a uniform.

See how the Deranged Leader views the "blood price" then...

[peoplespoet]

Jessthedog,
I agree with you, if our young Royal Princes can see then need to serve in the forces I challenge Tony Blair PM to send his son to lead our well trained, well equipped and well paid services into combat, Iraq or Afghanistan. The reality is that both Tony and his wife were active CND protesters not that long ago and he hates the thought of war FACT; so the chances of his sons serving are Zipy- d-do- Da.

PP

[Training Risky]

Seconded, motion carried.

Mrs Bliar (aka Banshee Face) is far too busy writing books on how to sue govt departments for negligence.

[4Foxtrot]

... and advocating that information gained from torturing suspects can be used to prevent further terrorist attacks. Even if we think it, perhaps we shouldn't say it! :eek: