Armed Forces face mass walk out over poor funding, report warns

[BEagle]

An interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph:

The Armed Forces face a mass walk out with under-funding leading to a "major crisis" in defence, an influential report backed by former military chiefs warns.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

They will soon be "paralysed" by the growing number of resignations and will take a decade to recover, the UK National Defence Association paper says.

A “huge burden” has been placed on the Forces with more than 12,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan that has led to an immense strain on both troops and equipment.

All three major political parties must now unite to back the "woefully under-funded" Forces whose budget urgently needs to be increased from the current £34 billion to £50 billion over the next three years, it states.

"The national interest requires the full-hearted engagement of Government and Opposition to rehabilitate our Armed Forces and repair our defences. Now is no longer the time for party politics," said Winston Churchill, the UKNDA's president and grandson of the wartime leader.

He warned that the Forces were "in crisis" with funding the lowest since the Thirties when "inadequate defence provision paved the way directly to world war".

The report highlights as a serious worry the continued drain of personnel which saw 20,000 troops resign last year fed up with poor pay, time away from families and inadequate accommodation.

"Remedial action can no longer be delayed without running the unacceptable risk of mass retirements from the widely demoralised Armed Forces," said the report, Overcoming The Defence Crisis, that was compiled by former generals, admirals and academics.

"There are no cheap victories in defence, but failure would be even more expensive. Never have all three Services had so little with which to do so much"

There has been a serious decline in morale resulting in more than 50 per cent of the military having considered resigning, according to the MoD's own survey.

To reverse the "unacceptable threat of major resignations" and restore morale the Services need a rapid improvement in pay, kit and manpower.

"The serious inadequacy of Britain's current and planned defence provision is undeniable," the 20 page report said.

Defence funding has hit the lowest level since the 1930s with no increase expected despite worsening world events

The Services have become "so run down" in terms of troop numbers and equipment that "urgent rehabilitation" is required.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/forcesize.jpg

With no major defence review since 1998 – before the Forces had fought five wars – the paper called for urgent review and for the Government to commit to higher spending before it concluded.

The paper argued that with equipment and personnel so worn out it would take three years to restore to previous levels even with the right funding.

The authors called on the Tories to exercise their bi-partisan duty "to ensure the country is properly defended" by encouraging the spending increase.

David Cameron's position of refusing any spending commitments was "completely inappropriate" as inadequate defence funding put "everything else at risk".
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg
There was a "huge mismatch" between what the "seriously under-resourced" Army was being asked to do and what it could do properly. In order to meet requirements the Army needed to expand by 10,000 troops.

The RAF was "so run down" in numbers and capability that it was unable to meet commitments "by a wide margin". Apart from Eurofighter Typhoons it was fielding an ageing and expensive fleet. The RAF needed to increase numbers from 41,000 to 55,000 to "meet the growing known threats and the unpredictable" otherwise Britain would not retain air superiority on operations for the first time since the 1941 invasion of Crete.

On present trends the Navy's once formidable Fleet will be "grievously weakened" heading towards half its current size by 2020 with no air cover for the next nine years after the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier.

With fewer warships there was insufficient training and as a result "standards are dropping".

The MoD said the Defence budget had experienced its longest period of sustained real growth for over 30 years.

“Additional Treasury funding allows us to deliver urgent and cutting-edge equipment to operations,” a spokesman said.

Personally, I feel the MoD spokesman has the naivety of 'Comical Ali' - and the words of Mandy Rice-Davies come to mind........

[zedder]

"Never have all three Services had so little with which to do so much"

How about we change that to be:

"Never have so few had so little to do so much"

Now doesn't that sound like a famous quote from a previous Winston Churchill! I don't think we'd be sat here in this dreadful state if he were still around.:{

[Lurking123]

There are a few city bankers kicking around.:}

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, well done. Normally I would say 'precis and post the link' but in this case I think it deserves a place of its own.

[Truckkie]

Perhaps our lords and masters may listen now?

I think not:mad:

[Mister-T]

Thanks for the post BEagle as I hadnt seen that in the papers. The article is spot on and I think the majority of us either serving or having served are deeply concerned as to the direction of the MoD. I am always gutted when the MoD responds with its rose tinted messages of glee at such news items.

It is tantamount to a smack in the face to all those whom are working very hard indeed to address these appalling issues.

I for one am still utterly dismayed that we are reliant on charity to ensure our wounded servicemen and women get the proper facilities in which to recover. That alone should be grounds for all of our concerns let alone the lack of funding toward any present and future programmes.

[cazatou]

BEagle,

You are showing your age - what ever made you think that HMG had the interests of the UK at heart?

When I see the PM on the TV I feel that I am in the same room as the PCL - you will know what I mean!!!

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

You're right, Brown does indeed have the same 'smile on the face of the tiger' and unpleasant brooding presence which the PCL had!

[minigundiplomat]

Anyone reckon Torpy raised this issue, shaking this morally corrupt government from it's slumber by shaking the establishment by the lapels?

Ill get my coat.

[NutLoose]

Jesus, is that all we have left fighter wise? 91? how many does that equate to when you discount unservicabilities and ones on maintenence?....... :mad:

I myself maintain a civilian fleet of 14 Aircraft these days... that equates to over a 1/6th of what the RAF can put in the Air on Air Defence..... Mindblowing.

[Jackonicko]

The bulk of the reductions were made by the previous, Conservative government.

[BEagle]

Whereas all the war commitments since the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been down to the wretched NuLabor government......:hmm:

Options for Change might have been Conservative-led, but the abject failure to stump up the resources to meet the demands of their 11 years of American bum-licking commitments is an entirely Bliar/Brown act.

[taxydual]

Nostrinian.

I'm ex-coalface, and not really true 'blue'. I see the Torygraph for the crossword, we do at work and finish it in the pub (sad, I know).

No other newspaper printed those figures that the Torygraph did. Other referred to the report, but separated the 'meat' from the 'two veg'.

I appreciate the media follows (sometimes) the political party line, but the facts cannot be changed, no matter what the political spin. The UK military are the 'runt of the government litter' but are expected to produce the 'pedigree' goods.

Figures can be manipulated quote "35% in real terms" whatever that means, but facts cannot be.

UK Mil is being **** on from a great height. Fact.

[Two's in]

I have no doubt about the poor morale in the Forces, but the graphical representation of the numbers tell a different story from the one most people see. In 1987 we were lined up 15 deep in Germany waiting for 3rd Shock Army to drop in via the Fulda and Coppenbrugge gaps. 1 (BR) Corps was huge, but had a very specific role, as did RAF Germany. The other stuff like NI and FI was good experience broadening stuff, and there were actually still a few sunshine posts left.

When the Berlin wall came down in 1989 it was the ideal time to restructure and re-role the Armed Forces, but no, Gulf War 1, the Balkans, Kosova, Afghanistan and Gulf War 2 came along with their own versions of crisis management. So here we are 19 years down the road with an Armed Forces that have been shaped and influenced by successive and systemic failures to invest in the right equipment, training and organizational structure.

The point is not, "look at all that kit we had in 1987", but "what is the most effective force structure to counter likely threats for the next 5-10 years". Not learning from wars is our most repeated fault, so before some Whitehall mandarin decides we don't need Minesweepers, or CAS, or Armoured Regiments as a cost saving exercise, we might wish to look at how we got to protecting Gulf shipping lanes, or supporting beleaguered infanty, or neutralising Iraqi armour over the last few years - you simply can't predict the next threat with any accuracy so you must have contingencies and spare capacity.

So the point is that today's equipment levels are not necessarily wrong, they just don't reflect any level of analysis or planning required for countering today's threats. They are simply the result of profligate and culpable Government policies over many years that have been led by Bean counter after Bean counter to the complete and total detriment of the Armed Forces, all the while being aided and abetted by a succession of Senior Officers.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Yes I see and hear and agree with your point. Of course I do. The public are not one single bit concerned with our standing, they lead the politos - no accident Labour got in 3 times, public have generally lapped Labour up, until very recently..

I think you're quite wrong about this.

There are plenty of civilians who are either ex-mil or only 1 step removed, i.e. have a family member or close friend that is in. Of course the public are concerned about the state of the forces and the conditions for those in. Don't forget its in the terms of reference, for some parts of the media, to dig out the clueless minority, or the vocal 'all military are murderers, they deserve whatever sh1t they get' idiots and then quote them.

However, people do feel they they are effectively disenfranchised, in all aspects of the government of this country, of which the state of the forces is one aspect.

Out of my circle of family, friends and professional colleauges, there is nobody that could be described by your statement.

And in the broader sense, during the last election, only 22% of the electorate voted for labour. Hardly qualifies as lapping them up.

You've got more support than you might realise, and perhaps more than the politicians recognise as well. It deserves to be an election issue, and the more its placed in the line of sight of the politicians the more likely they are to realise it.

pb

[moosemaster]

I would love to think you were correct pb, and for those people close to you you probaly are.

The great unwashed are fickle beings, as any politician will tell you.

As a recent departee I fully understand the increase commitments over the last decade or so, and if our plight had have been properly highlighted 12-18 months ago, maybe we could expect something to be done about it. However the Armed Forces have always been good at "Getting the Job Done!!" We were our own worst enemy, and with YES men all over the place, it was never going to change.

With the credit crunch in full swing, all Joe Public will see is his/her bank balance going down the swanee. The country as a whole is in freefall.

Good 'ol Gordo flogged all our gold when it was at an all time low so now UK PLC is broke, and with public taxation at an all time high (or seemingly so at least), I seriously doubt whether anyone would sanction increased spending on HMF at present. No matter how good or noble the cause, I don't think Joe Public would put up with it.

People do have power. They can chosse one politico over another, but people will always go with what is best for them at the time. Which will put more money in my pocket and help me feed my family? The problem may not be completely NuLabour, but also Cons and LibDems for not actualy being a viable alternative.

The taloids have all done their part in our demise too. The Sun (which lets face it is read by a larger percentage of the UK populous than virtually any other paper!!) continually swing from

"Support our troops!!"

to

"Airmen waste money on foreign jollies!!" which we all know are actually legit training missions and the choice of accomodation is actually the cheapest on offer.

If we can get on the right wave at the right time, maybe some things could change (accomodation upgrade, new PPE etc).

If not, don't expect anything soon.

[BEagle]

Nostrinian, I'm not sure why you saw fit to shoot the messenger?

Nevertheless, the UK's Armed Forces are suffering from overstretch and underfunding - and the RAF staggers on with an increasingly ageing fleet of aircraft, TypHoon excepted. Additionally, it cannot even afford its own training, so has had to opt for the 'PFI solution' of MFTS. Yet MFTS cannot even identify whence it will source its instructors.....:hmm:

Who is responsible for this sorry state? A succession of yes men.

And it's looking increasingly that the sparrows are coming home to roost.

[Flyingblind]

Just a thought,

Any ex-mil types thought of running for Parliament...or is that too close to Cromwell?

[Pontius Navigator]

Nostrinian, whilst I wear blue (:) hint) and you know which way I will vote (probably) I believe that since the war that the Labour government has actually been as pro, if not more pro, than Tory.

Without deep research, who initiated the atom bomb project in the face of union resistance? Who ordered the V-bomber force? Who ordered the F4 and C130, the Jaguar etc? Who actually wanted to keep us east of Suez?

Who let the through-deck cruiser programme continue?

More recently of course there has been a dearth of funding at the coal face but who ordered new destroyers and carriers, SSBN, Typhoon etc.

I know that Labour also cancelled projects including the P1154 and one I shall not mention, but the balance sheet would be interesting.

Now for officers, to a man, voting Tory, well not quite all. But on the Denver principle like father, like son. Only if there is a distinct fallout betwen father and son does one vote the other way. In other words there will be great lag between officers changing voting allegiance and the general public.

With sheer weight of numbers the other ranks will be better representatives of the general public and again the Denver principle will apply. Like father, like son.

[airborne_artist]

There are plenty of civilians who are either ex-mil or only 1 step removed, i.e. have a family member or close friend that is in. Of course the public are concerned about the state of the forces and the conditions for those in.I disagree. National Servicemen are all in their 60s or above now. The small size of all three services, and the massive closure of bases/barracks means that for many the only connection they have with the military is through their television.

Many did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, and see massive mission creep in Afghanistan (John Read "no bullets will be fired"??). Their own communities are fractured (knife/gun crime, rise of BNP etc), the money thrown at the NHS and schools is having little impact, and the MoD wants more money - they don't get it. Pull back from these foreign wars and stop trying to be a world power, they argue.

[sapco2]

QUOTE "Many did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, and see massive mission creep in Afghanistan (John Read "no bullets will be fired"??). Their own communities are fractured, the money thrown at the NHS and schools is having little impact, and the MoD wants more money. Pull back from these foreign wars and stop trying to be a world power, they argue."

And they'd be absolutely right... the world's economies are stagnating, so we can expect to see even less tax revenue, leading to further cuts in military and public service spending. Unemployment in the UK is set to reach 2m by the end of the year and we're not over the worst of it by a long chalk. Our overseas commitments are therefore bound to be called into question.

[Mr Grimsdale]

The story was covered in several newspapers yesterday. Here's the UKNDA email on the subject...

Dear UKNDA member,

Following the release of the UKNDA discussion paper, Overcoming the Defence Crisis, we thought you might be interested to see a small selection of media coverage so far.

Daily Telegraph (front page):
Armed Forces face mass walk out over poor funding, report warns - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/2969962/Armed-Forces-face-mass-walk-out-over-poor-funding-report-warns.html)

Daily Mail:
Government funding cuts since the Cold War now has Britain's ailing Armed Forces at 'breaking point' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056799/Government-funding-cuts-Cold-War-Britains-ailing-Armed-Forces-breaking-point.html)

BBC:
BBC NEWS | UK | Leavers 'could paralyse' forces (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/7620326.stm)

Portsmouth News:
Calls for boost in defence spending - Portsmouth Today (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Calls-for-boost-in-defence.4498754.jp)
Sky News:
Britain's Armed Forces Need Multi-Billion Pound Boost In Spending Claims National Defence Associatio | UK News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Britains-Armed-Forces-Need-Multi-Billion-Pound-Boost-In-Spending-Claims-National-Defence-Associatio/Article/200809315101033)

The Scotsman:
Forces in crisis, say veterans - Scotsman.com News (http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Forces-in-crisis-say-veterans.4498298.jp)

London Metro:
Calls for defence spending boost | Metro.co.uk (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Calls_for_defence_spending_boost&in_article_id=312589&in_page_id=34&in_a_source)=

Newcastle Journal:
Calls for defence spending boost - JournalLive (http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/uk-news-world/2008/09/17/calls-for-defence-spending-boost-84229-21835387/)
Press Association:
The Press Association: Calls for defence spending boost (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGVMiOkX5Vx-ZXJmTG7fPoXTlApw)
Regards,
Andy Smith FRGS FCIJ
PRO - UKNDA
Tel 07737 271676

Email [email protected]

[BEagle]

I believe that since the war that the Labour government has actually been as pro, if not more pro, than Tory.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg
But hardly true of NuLabor under Trust-me-Tone or Grumpy Gordo?

But you're right on one point - that fool Duncan Sandys was Conservative...:mad:

No-one still knows for sure which of Wislon's closet commies was finally responsible for murdering TSR2.

[parabellum]

'twas Mr & Mrs Callaghan, or so I was told.

[SRENNAPS]

"Airmen waste money on foreign jollies!!" which we all know are actually legit training missions and the choice of accomodation is actually the cheapest on offer.


Well most are:E:E:E

[A2QFI]

My recollection from serving in the RAF in the 60s and 70s was that the pleasure of the work, the cameraderie, mess life, squadron life and sheer enjoyment of what we did and where we did it, well outweighed the crap and nonsense (what little there was). Now there is no way that the crap and nonsense could be outweighed by anything. Everybody seems to be rushing around with their trousers on fire, doing their best (as ALWAYS) when overtasked, underequipped, undermanned and unappreciated.

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, quite right, I got distracted and forgot to mention how things had changed with Nu-labour.

I also omitted the AFVG, that other jet, the Supersonic Javelin, and of course Nimrod and Nimwacs. The balance sheet of who started what, who ordered what and who cancelled and cut would be interesting. I may suggest it to Peter Hennessy.

Dennis Healey fostered the idea that he was the Forces friend and certainly stayed the course. It was Maggie who was a real friend giving the Forces a massive payrise AND the tools to do the job that won the Cold War.

[SRENNAPS]

A2QFI

You have just hit the nail on the head. We loved the life in RAFG; you worked your nuts off, but you played hard and enjoyed the life that went with it to the full. There was always a work life balance (and yes we spent up to 6 months plus away on detachment each year) and this created high morale and a sense of belonging. I (and my family) immediately noticed the difference when RAF Germany closed, and in my opinion that’s when the real rot started.

Suddenly it was all about achieving more for less, efficiency drives, cutbacks that quite frankly really hurt and this perceived attitude from the top to stamp out any form of morale.

For certain Sqns and trades within the RAF the tempo of operations associated with lack of kit, crap kit and lack of care is really starting to make good people leave in droves.

Just about every SNCO that I served with in Germany on Tonka Sqns has now left. Some of these people (including myself) were of the type where if you cut them in half they had a blue roundel in the middle. Only 10 years ago that number of people leaving would have been un-heard of.

Just my two-pence worth.

[Capt Pit Bull]

There are plenty of civilians who are either ex-mil or only 1 step removed, i.e. have a family member or close friend that is in. Of course the public are concerned about the state of the forces and the conditions for those in.

I disagree. National Servicemen are all in their 60s or above now. The small size of all three services, and the massive closure of bases/barracks means that for many the only connection they have with the military is through their television.

OK, obviously you're entitled to that viewpoint.

Even today, the total strength of the armed forces is quite substantial. I just have a few minutes so I'm not going to dig out exact figures, a quick web search suggests about 460,000. I include reservists, (as well as VRs. I kn ow a lot of folks here look down on them, but its still a connection). A few family members and a couple of civvy mates each still gives a a pool of folks who know a serviceman/woman closely at several million.

Go back to the early 80's and you find its closer to 600,000. Most of whom are probably still alive, and a good chunk of whom will now be ex service.

Then you've got all the civilianised jobs, plus the MOD and defence related industries.

One way or another, there are still a lot of people with direct or indirect forces connection. Hence I can not support the view point expressed earlier that the public are 'not one bit concerned'.

To be frank, that viewpoint sounds more than a little self pitying.

Unfortunately, I feel the houses of parliament contain a disproportionate number of those that actually don't care (including my own current MP and the previous one who both have the analytical abilities of a brain damaged gerbil).


Many did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, and see massive mission creep in Afghanistan (John Read "no bullets will be fired"??). Their own communities are fractured (knife/gun crime, rise of BNP etc), the money thrown at the NHS and schools is having little impact, and the MoD wants more money - they don't get it. Pull back from these foreign wars and stop trying to be a world power, they argue.

I know it is de-rigeur to take the view that civvies are gash/lazy/clueless etc but actually most of us are capable of differentiating between 'supporting a war' and 'supporting our armed forces'.

Best wishes from a supportive and grateful civilian.

pb

[Bob Viking]

Quote:
'The RAF needed to increase numbers from 41,000 to 55,000'
So you mean about what it was before the most recent round of cuts then?!
Doh.:ugh:
BV

[DICKYMINT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/16/military.defence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/16/military.defence)

[airborne_artist]

Capt Pit Bull - the numbers of servicemen only look good when you include the regular reserve, many of whom have been out for five years or more. Take them out and the numbers have halved in 25 years.

Look at the huge closures of military bases - the RAF has withdrawn to about a quarter of the bases it had 25 years ago, most of the county army presences have been closed and the RN is in just Portsmouth and Plymouth, as well as Culdrose and Yeovilton. The military are no longer part of daily life for many people in the way it was a generation ago.

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

Cancelling the aircraft carriers would free up money........do we really need them? And even if so, can we afford them?

:E

[BEagle]

....the RAF has withdrawn to about a quarter of the bases it had 25 years ago...

Since 1968, in the UK alone:

Abingdon
Acklington
Andover
Aston Down
Ballykelly
Bassingbourn
Bentwaters
Bicester
Biggin Hill
Binbrook
Bovingdon
Brawdy
Chivenor
Church Fenton
Coltishall
Cranwell North
Driffield
Elvington
Finningley
Fulbeck
Gaydon
Gravely
Greenham Common
Hamble
Honington
Hullavington
Kemble
Leconfield
Lindholme
Little Rissington
Machiranish
Manby
Newton
North Luffenham
North Weald
Oakington
Ouston
Pershore
Scampton
Spitalgate
St Davids
St Mawgan
Stradishall
Strubby
Swinderby
Syerston
Tangmere
Ternhill
Thorney Island
Waterbeach
Wattisham
Watton
West Malling
West Raynham
White Waltham

[glad rag]

"A2QFI

You have just hit the nail on the head. We loved the life in RAFG; you worked your nuts off, but you played hard and enjoyed the life that went with it to the full. There was always a work life balance (and yes we spent up to 6 months plus away on detachment each year) and this created high morale and a sense of belonging. I (and my family) immediately noticed the difference when RAF Germany closed, and in my opinion that’s when the real rot started.


Suddenly it was all about achieving more for less, efficiency drives, cutbacks that quite frankly really hurt and this perceived attitude from the top to stamp out any form of morale.

For certain Sqns and trades within the RAF the tempo of operations associated with lack of kit, crap kit and lack of care is really starting to make good people leave in droves.

Just about every SNCO that I served with in Germany on Tonka Sqns has now left. Some of these people (including myself) were of the type where if you cut them in half they had a blue roundel in the middle. Only 10 years ago that number of people leaving would have been un-heard of."


Guys, you have summed up how so many people have felt for so long.....:D

[spheroid]

Has Chivenor closed....?

[A2QFI]

I think Chivenor is used by the Royal Marines. Many former RAF bases have been taken on by other branches of the military; Wattisham, Bassingbourn and Chivenor come to mnd and I am sure there are others. Acklington and one near Scampton are prisons.

[BFPO]

Chivenor is indeed a Royal Marines unit, the Hawks moved out in the 90's. There is also a large Army contingent there (which makes for a lot of fun on a Friday night...). 22 Sqn 'A' Flight is still there although the engineering side of things was civilianized a couple of years ago. 22 Sqn HQ moved from Chivenor to Valley recently.

[skippedonce]

BEagle,

I was at the Annual Reception at RAF Scampton (where the Red Arrows and an operational CRC are based) yesterday. RAF Honington is home to the RAF Regiment.

SO

[Roland Pulfrew]

SO

I think BEags was referring to flying stations. Church Fenton is also in his list which still has flying, but no longer has a station to support it. Honington has no flying and Scampton..... well who really knows!!

Missing from his list are some of the non-flying stations that have been closed as well ie RAF Hereford, RAF Sealand, RAF Innsworth etc etc

BEags you missed off Macrihanish (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/machrihanish.html), who can forget Macrihanish? :E

[Akrotiri bad boy]

I've just been doing a rare spot of thinking....

The current fleet of transport aircraft dates back to the late 60's early 70's, I'm thinking of C130's and VC10's along with the Nimrod dating from a similar period. The new boy TriStar having been nailed together perhaps in the mid 70's. These aircraft are all now 30 to 40 years old.

When I took Betty's shilling in the late 70's to fly around in a 30 year old transport aircraft would have meant clambering aboard an Avro York, whilst the maritiime fleet would have been lumbering along in Sunderlands or perhaps the new fangled P2V Neptune. :mad:madness.

It's no surprise that people are considering walking when so much more is expected from an aging fleet with no slack in the system to allow for unserviceability.

[peppermint_jam]

There is a 22 page report on the subject available for download here.

NEWS - UKNDA DISCUSSION PAPER: 'OVERCOMING THE DEFENCE CRISIS' - UKNDA - The UK National Defence Association (http://www.uknda.org/uknda_discussion_paper:_overcoming_the_defence_crisis/n-154.html)

Apologies if the link has been posted already.

Makes interesting reading.

p_j

[BEagle]

You're right, Roly - I had indeed forgotten Machrihanish.

Where I once landed in a Gnat and the QFI taxyed us off the RW - along a road! He'd taken the instruction "Take the next left" rather too literally!

Overnight, much beer and hilarity with 2 other Gnat occupants, then back to Valley the next day feeling slightly under the weather...........:(
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

My list was indeed of 'places where the RAF used to fly'. The fact that some of our best bases are now either prisons or occupied by Royals, Rocks or Pongos earns them a place on the list!

If Scampton can ever make its mind up, I'll remove it! Last I heard was that RAFAT will be moving to Waddo - but will still need R313. As for the Fighter Confusers, where they will be next week let alone next month is a bit of a mystery!

[Ali Qadoo]

Stories of "everyone's leaving" are déjà vu all over again. I recall during the late 80s when the airlines were hiring anyone military who could spell aeroplane, that we were treated to the Robson report (think that's the right name - have Googled in vain to find any news of it) into retention, life, the universe and everything. The push factors were pretty much the same as they are now - you could argue that we didn't realise at the time how much worse things would get - but the outcome was something along the lines of, "You can buy yourself a nice poseurs leather jacket and....err, that's it." I clearly remember a hilarious session in the mess at Chivenor when one of their airships came along to brief us, post Robson, on how lucky we were to be flying HM's aircraft, that they'd taken careful note of what had been said and that: a) most of what we were unhappy about was as a result of our failure to understand how well looked-after we were and b) things were going to get even better thanks to the new leather jackets. The quality of the banter, heckling and barracking that the poor chap received was a joy to behold.

Bottom line, just as per 20 years ago (and yes, it was a Conservative govt under the blessèd M) there is neither the will nor the cash to fix the problem.

[dallas]

The push factors were pretty much the same as they are now
I disagree, although there are some similarities. Principally, we weren't fighting 2 wars that required a relentless flow of ageing resources (inc. people!) to deploy afar 24/7. You might draw comparisons to the Cold War, except Defence was essentially well funded and with the exception of a few 4am wake-up sirens every so often, it was business at usual. GRANBY was a wake-up call, but it was a surge operation that relented after the surge - as surges are supposed to do!

But also around that era, once the Berlin Wall came down, there was scope for cuts, and it wasn't really until the late-90s when questions were asked as to whether they'd gone too far - the problem was nobody could quite define who we were planning to fight (I remember IntOs all over the place making up nonsense scenarios where Brownland was threatening Pinkland because they were allied to Orangeland blah blah blah - none of which anyone cared about). As a result - and excluding the Balkans War - the forces were erroded some more because they actually didn't have that much to do.

On 10 Sep 2001 the situation hadn't changed much, apart from Defence being even more on the back burner, right up until everyone was caught with their pants down. The Americans were experiencing cuts too, but remained big enough to shoulder the news mission(s) and we tagged along as we always have. Except we still haven't shifted politically, because unlike the Cold War, the UK isn't apparently, directly, threatened, so Defence remains low down the list.

Right now is very different to the late 80s.

With regards to what to do about it, I don't think money is just the answer. Around the run-up to GRANBY budgets were flooded with cash 'for the push' and many people saw this as an opportunity to buy things that recently introduced budgetary management wouldn't let them buy - nothing to do with GRANBY. You can only imagine the projects that people would want to run off with if we were suddenly flooded with cash! Moreover, just raising salaries as a retention measure would, as ever, not address the problems and therefore only be a temporary measure.

As I've said before, I personally feel it's not what we do, but how we do it - or perhaps how hard we make it would be a better descriptor - and money without a review would most likely just be wasted money. For example, I will eventually get onboard my 28-year old TriStar at BZZ, laden with too much issued personal kit, having put up with repetative courses, quite possibly having been given only a few weeks notice-to-move despite it being a 'routine' rotation to a long established post. My notification would be via a 'workflow notification' that I happened to stumble across - unless Admin phoned to ask why I hadn't attended a course I didn't know about, while I would most likely be the one to tell my boss of his instant manning headache for the next 5ish months.

We're in the Gulf for a long time - why aren't we getting better at it?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The mention by dallas of the money that was thrown at op GRANBY reminded me of the extra cash for Urgent Operational Requirements that Darling the Incredible, Browne of the Scottish Office and Brown the Humourless keep telling us is so generous. Perhaps because the Navy haven’t had many UORs recently, I missed something quite significant; although I had heard rumours. The latest edition of Defence Director has an article on air reconnaissance and surveillance (View From The Top);



The RAF’s 39 Squadron has operated two Reapers from Kandahar with the first operational flight in October last year. In April, one MQ-9 crashed. The RAF hopes to acquire a further ten, although it is not clear if this £450M acquisition will go through in its entirety. Just because it’s a UOR, does not mean it’s free from extra Treasury clawback. Reaper is one of four UORs in Op Herrick that have to be back filled from the future procurement budget, with the Treasury requiring nearly £11M to be returned annually for four years, continuing until 2011-12.


So not all of the additional funding to cover the Government’s self generated conflicts is truly additional. That may go some way to explaining the £2,000M that needs to be saved from the Equipment Budget over the next 3 years.


Apologies to those who already knew this and further apologies for the Thread drift.

[Pontius Navigator]

I've just been doing a rare spot of thinking....

Take care, that is quite dangerous in Cyprus, have another beer and let the feeling go away.

The current fleet of transport aircraft dates back to the late 60's early 70's, I'm thinking of C130's and VC10's along with the Nimrod dating from a similar period. The new boy TriStar having been nailed together perhaps in the mid 70's. These aircraft are all now 30 to 40 years old.

OK they might be designed to higher or safer specifications now but I made a similar point some time ago.

I flew in Ansons. They were ancient beasts about 22 years old when they were scraped. Hastings 15 years old, Lancaster, 24 when I first flew in it, Vulcans, brand new when I started and scraped 24 years or so later. Shackleton, 25 years old when I started and scrapped around 33.

F4, new, scraped about 22 years later.
Nimrod, 5 yrs old when I started and now 38 years on. VC10, 40 odd and many from the used car lot. GR1, now GR4 24?, F3 21.

OK, the Harriers are new and the USAF have rebuilt and extended air frame life too.

[Madbob]

In reply to the post by Dallas.....

Where we get it wrong, not just in the RAF but in all of the Forces, is the reliance on detached service on supposedly temporary posts.

The problem lies with the polititions (here I mean HM Treasury) not setting the establishment levels sufficient to the demands being placed upon the manpower (and womenpower) of the Forces.

What is forgotten is that the services rely on continuous recruitment of new people - it can't let its "workforce" get top-heavy with old "salts" much as it would like to retain their experience. Consequently training of new recruits, be they sailors, soldiers and airmen is a constant. The effect is that c. 30% of the total strength is either under training or giving instruction. The remainder is available in theory "to play". But with troop rotations being an essential part of sustained ops as opposed to a surge, this only leaves c. 30% of the total force available to serve in the front-line. The other 10% are either out of play due to injury, leave, re-settlement and the need to attend advanced courses, staff College etc. to make them suitable for promotion.

With "civillianisation" of second and third echelon establishments in flying training, maintenance, engineering, catering etc. we just don't have the "depth" we used to be able to rely on. What is left is only the "can-do" attitude and resourcefulness of our people who IMHO are papering over cracks in the system to the long-term detriment of the organisations they represent. Our Service chiefs need to learn to say NO more often!

I think it was Douglas Bader who when CO of 242 Sqn rfused to declare the sqn operational until he had a full inventory of tools and spares for his sqn. Having 18 new aircraft with pilots was not enough - and he had the luxury of new a/c. All we have now are long past their pension points....but no leaders willing to speak out at the folly of carrying on in this way.

Until the situation radically improves there is no way that I would want my children (now 18 and 17) to serve in any of the UK armed forces, and I am sure I am not alone. I did 10 years (and 130 days in the FI) but saw the writing on the wall when "Options for Change" spelled massively reduced career prospects with stations being closed almost everywhere.

Just my 2p worth.

MB

[Whossat Forrus]

Is the Royal Air Force really running with 60% of its GD(P) posts manned? Even with a training system running full throttle you'd be hard pressed to pull back from that one. At best you could only maintain the levels if you don't retain the experience to train the new pilots.

What's with the rumour the the Services are looking at using legal action to prevent anyone they need from leaving? Lawyer I know is rubbing his hands over this one, he can't wait. The £ signs are flashing in his eyes, win-win is all he can mutter between dribbles. Yesterday he took delivery of 2000 laminated advertisement posters he's looking to distribute. Told him to look at PPRuNe. Probably only makes sense to disband the RAF in the near future I'd have thought if things are that bad.

[ricardian]

A little ditty posted to the RAF Boy Entrant Association (RAFBEA) email list:
I'm the last man left in the Air Force,
I've an office in MOD
and a copy of Queens Regulations
which only apply to me.
I can post myself to Leuchars
and detach me from there to Kinloss,
or send me on courses to Innsworth,
then cancel the lot - I'm the boss.

I'm the last man left in the Air Force,
but the great Parliamentary brains
neglected, when cancelling people,
to sell off the Stations and planes.
The result is, my inventory bulges
with KD and camp-stools and Quarters,
plus a signed book of speeches by Trenchard
which I keep to impress the reporters.

I'm the last man left in the Air Force,
I suppose you imagine it's great
to be master of all you survey, but
I tell you it's difficult, mate.
I inspected three units last Thursday,
As C-in-C ( Acting ) of Strike,
then I swept half the runway at Laarbruch
and repaired Saxa Vord's station bike.

I'm the last man left in the Air Force,
it's not doing a lot for my health.
Unit sports days are frankly exhausting
when the Victor Ludorum's oneself.
On guest nights the Mess is so lonely,
there are times when I wish I was able
to pass the port to the chap next to me,
without seeing it fall off the table.

I'm the last man left in the Air Force,
my wife says I'm never at home,
when I'm not flying Hercs, I'm at Manston,
laying gallons and gallons of foam,
or I'm in my Marine Craft off Plymouth,
shooting flares at the crowds on the Ho,
or I'm Orderly Corporal at Luqa.
It's an interesting life, but all go.

I'm the last man left in the Air Force.
I'm ADC to the Queen,
I'm Duty Clerk at St. Mawgan,
I'm the RAF rugby team.
Tomorrow I'm painting a guardroom
and air-testing numerous planes.
The day after that I'm for London,
to preach at St. Clement Danes.

I'm the last man left in the Air force
and I'm due to go out before long.
There's been no talk of any replacement
and I won't even let me sign on.
I hope to enjoy my retirement.
I've put up a fairly good show,
and I won't cut myself off entirely.
There are always reunions, you know.

[ricardian]

The author of "Last man in the Air Force" was P.I.Fisher, a Master Signaller on 51 Sqd at Wyton. He is now retired and works under the pen name Peter Wyton. The poem was first published in RAF Wyton's station magazine in the early 70's and, subsequently, in a book of his poems titled Even The Beggars Have Pearls.

[Broadsword***]

I think it safe to say that PVR rates closely mirror the economic cycle. When times are good, people walk. When the economy takes a downturn, people tend to stay put.

The fundamentals of military life (eg the nomadic lifestyle and the sometimes stifling discipline) tend not change. These immutable factors are generally what decide people to jump ship. It is just a question of timing.

The fact "Last Man in the Air Force" was written 35 years ago, suggests that despondency with 'stretch' in the Service is neither new, nor is it a threat to the long-term survival of the RAF.

[Farfrompuken]

I suspect that the economic Armageddon that is on the horizon (we haven't seen anything yet) will play in to the RAFs hands nicely thank you.

The flip-side is this will be temporary and the moment things pick up people will once more seek better employment.

It would be nice if CAS wasn't relying on a recession to do what decent management and leadership would achieve.

[minigundiplomat]

Farfrom,

The economy will pick up, and unless you already have a large mortgage, are seeking employment in the city, or are tied to the UK, there will still be plenty of jobs around.

However, having spent the entire wealth of the nation playing smash and grab with banking stock, El Gordo is going to have to trim costs somewhere....... ah, defence. Politically easier than health, education or the crumbling transport system.

Why do you think expectations of victory in Afghanistan are being toned down and talks held with the Taliban?
Apparently security cannot be secured without their participation in the process and this has only come to light as the government is a bit strapped for cash.

Expect the manning chaos to get worse, expect any positive news to be announced several times over, but expect things to get worse, far worse, far worse than we can imagine type worse.

Things are pretty crap now, and with a static, or even reduced slice of the budget, they are only going to get worse.

My advice to those sitting on the fence right now is to look at life in both camps not right now, but in 12-18 months.

[clicker]

OK I'm not in the services and nor am I one for politics, to me any party can be as good/bad/indifferent as the rest.

When people talk about who cut this and who cut that I always think, why didnt the other parties reinstate it. OK I can understand that cant always be the case but some are so long term they could be.

That said I could be talking cr@p giving my first paragraph and have prepared the frame suit and bunker accordingly.

Edited to say that I fully support all the armed services, thence looking at this thread, and have been dismayed that cutbacks still are happening when they should have stopped years or even a decade or more ago.

[cazatou]

BEagle,

Re your post#25.

I was told many years ago by "someone who was present" that the cancellation of TSR2 followed a Cabinet meeting at which the then SofS Defence (Mr Healy) informed the PM that, whilst under test, TSR 2 had suffered a major structural failure of its wings.

This information (although incomplete) was quite correct - what was left out of this information was that the airframe on which this occurred was the airframe that was being tested to destruction.

[scorpion63]

Where, Oh where is Guy Fawkes now that we need him.

[John Purdey]

Cazatou. For the facts about the TSR2 decision, please see he Proceedings of the RAF History Society, but this is in anybody's language, subject creep! Regards JP