Where is all this going?

[MaroonMan4]

I can see the nibbles on Prune threads about emerging threats, implications to reduction in size and some specific capabilities of UK Defence, and of course changes to pay and conditions of service, but is it only me that is noticing similarities with history where Defence spending and resourcing was reduced.

There also appears to be a confusing and contradictory political strategic message being broadcast; US President Obama declaring optimism on emerging from 10 years of war (as in war is over), to our Prime Minister declaring a generational struggle against militant islamists (the war will continue).

I see a Prime Minister want to change the relationship with Europe, and yet I see the proposed use of French Carriers and Strat AT (to mention but a few) beginning to blur/slide the UK's military into a quasi EU Force (with all that entails)

This ambiguity and uncertainty is also seen in the senior leadership, with a ACGS saying on BBC when questioned about the recent Army redundancies that British Forces would be able to deliver 'capacity building' in the future .....what on earth is that and what does it mean?

So here we are pulling out of Afghan, attemting to save money by decreasing the MoD budget in anyway possible (notably equipment and reducing pay and conditions for our people/service families), and yet the world is probably looking as globally unstable as at any time in my 4 decade career.

If we are that broke, and Treasury and the British people would prefer to have the 'generational struggle' within the UK mainland rather than at source in the countries of origin, then I am all for reducing the the military into Italian style UK Carabinieri with niche capabilities for 'capacity building' (which I think means engineers, logistics specialists, medical etc)......but somehow I dont believe that is what lies install, and sadly when everyone is looking at banking Defence savings due to ending 10 years in Iraq and Afghan, the time frame of 2015-2020 could bite us badly (especially with an election in 2015 - and we dont need to watch Yes Prime Minister to know what that means!).

Is the silence on PPrune because we are all tired with the constant change and the plundering of Defence resources? Are we all sitting on our elbows waiting to see the true extant and personal effect of the new pension schemes and employments models, planning exit strategies accordingly? Or have we just given up after 10 years + of high tempo operations and just dont care anymore with loyalty to Queen and Country a distant thing of the past now as the 'loyalty' door with the MoD is now seen as one way? Or are we acknowledging that Defence was a poorly managed fat cat, needed this level of budget control and pruning and that actually we will be just fine for the conflicts of tomorrow?

Or is it just me and at the back end of my career I am just becoming too old and not embracing this new military environment very well (so very different from the one I joined, with the most marked change from the early 00s).

[Wrathmonk]

I suspect the silence may be caused by the fact that the majority of the posters on this forum are

1. Retired.

2. Non UK.

3. Never served / wannabees.

4. WUMs (wind up merchants).

5. 'Fantasists' (who believe there is a bottomless pit of cash with which to buy all the good toys).

The above, ,of course, all have the right to air their opinions but generally only appear on threads where no (recent) military experience/knowledge is required so would soon be found out if they were to join in on the points you raise.

And I'm days to being a '1' so no comment from me!

[Andu]

In his inauguration speech, Barak Obama did everything but take a slip of paper out of his coat pocket, wave it above his head and intone "Peace in our time".

I'm afraid I think we're about to witness results almost as cataclysmic and far-reaching as those that followed the time when those words were in fact uttered by a major Western leader - and I'm by no means even remotely confident that, in the long run, those who we like to think of as the good guys will eventually prevail this time.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many of our current political leadership seem to have almost no appreciation of history at all and so don't even know what has happened before. I'm particularly concerned about one aspect of history that first appeared in the Spanish Civil War - the crippling, battle-losing effect of a 'fifth column'. This last point applies, I think, particularly in Britain.

[Finningley Boy]

I think Barak Obama's speech could possibly be read as a message to Cameron, Hollande and the like that they needn't wave for his attention when they need U.S. Military equipment to engage islamist rebels in places like Mali.

That said, I do think that under the Global circumstances, it was tempting fate just a tad to smile like a "MAD" cartoon character and announce without the slightest hint of caution, such a bold prediction for the future.

FB

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Wrathmonk is right, and those of us who fit in Cat 1. Retired are probably keeping mostly quiet because we've been asked to by recent Serving posters, and we can take a hint. On this topic however, we may have something to offer.

In my case, I am both 1. Retired and 2. non-UK because I saw this coming a long time ago. If I had an answer, I'd have stayed to try and help fix it.

To comment on MM4's points; Defence has been mismanaged desperately by the politicians, who are clueless as to how to fix DES/DPA/MoD(PE) and too concerned with protecting industry. A still-Serving friend of mine reckoned we'd have to lose two wars before it changed. Sadly, the politicians are believing their own BS that we didn't lose Iraq and the 'Stan. Two more losses to come then. And now there's really no cash, so it will continue getting worse. Frankly, the Armed Forces are now so small there will be no change until the UK itself is under threat again.We have no overseas 'interests' that we can do anything about unilaterally, so the Government will wring its hands and pretend we didn't care anyway, unless they can get multinational support. Furthermore, Joe Voter clearly doesn't care whether we can contribute to another Libya-style action or not.

If it's any consolation, I spent a second career in Education, and they've f#cked that up at the Government/DfE level too.

[Finningley Boy]

I've just been listening to PM's Questions, somebody on the Labour side had a go about 5,000 + Soldiers to be sacked/made redundant, Cameron's stock reply; We have the fourth largest Defence Budget in the World.

The man's a deceitful idiot, but then for how many people watching is this reassurance enough? Just how many British people question how come we have such a small and ever shrinking deployable operational Navy, Army and Air Force?

FB

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

May I remind readers that Gordon (spit) Brown's standard answer to criticism was to state how much was being spent, rather than the effect that spending was having.

p.s. to the current generation of politicians, "effective" is spelt "elected". If it doesn't help get them elected, then it's not "effective" and will be sacrificed for something that does.

[dctyke]

FB: Just how many British people question how come we have such a small and ever shrinking deployable operational Navy, Army and Air Force?

Outside the armed forces sphere I reckon around 2% tops. Most british people are having a hard time keeping their heads above water to worry about anything else!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I also fall into Wrathmonk's Cat 1. My chief reason for not responding anymore is the memory of a former boss's advice on promotion; "learn when to stop p**sing against the wind". No longer concerned with promotion but a long life without raised blood pressure would be nice.

That's a good point about confusing cash spent with effect bought. We try to field the best technically available Force without the benefit of economy of scale. The smaller we get, the more expensive it is likely to become. Expense is the principle embuggerance and puts it all firmly in the hands of traditionally Defence/War averse Treasury. The current financial crisis, that they must have had a grandstand seat for the run up, must be heaven sent for them. It now seems that they are no longer pulling the strings from the background:
BBC News - Minister Danny Alexander dismisses Trident replacement

It's the futility and the general Government selective deafness and myopia that supresses many of us responding to real events anymore.

[Evalu8ter]

Moreover, Brown was only really bothered where the money was being spent; the endless funnelling of taxpayers money into select constituencies....

We may have the world's 4th largest defence budget but when it is used as a 'benefits systems' for British industry and a posing pouch for senior officers anxious to swagger next to their US counterparts it's no surprise it gets frittered away.

[glad rag]

agreeing with the CAT 1 thing.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^same here. ^^^^^^^^

Basically too busy keeping family housed and fed in these unnecessarily difficult times.

Consider the UK political system, politicians and their mandarins "être au-dessous de tout"

gr.

[BossEyed]

Originally Posted by Andu

In his inauguration speech, Barak Obama did everything but take a slip of paper out of his coat pocket, wave it above his head and intone "Peace in our time".

He may not have waved the paper, but he did intone the words.

Originally Posted by Obama

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

I wasn't sure I'd heard correctly!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The tragedy is that if the Defence industry had been given a kick up the arse a long time ago, it could have become more efficient. I can only speak about WasteOfSpace as my Uncle was high enough to know what was going on. He is also 1. Retired, 2. Non-UK and, bottom line, no longer tearing his hair out.

Maybe it still can become more efficient, but not the way things are, and are going.

[pr00ne]

There is so much nonsense spouted here it is almost beyond belief. If we have such a "defence/war adverse Treasury" then how come we spend more on Defence than all other countries on the face of the planet bar three?

We are in the middle of recovering from the largest financial melt down since the 1920's with absolutely no military threat facing us, we still maintain the worlds 4th largest defence budget and posses military capabilities far beyond all but a few nations.

Calm down dears...

[tucumseh]

Defence has been mismanaged desperately by the politicians, who are clueless as to how to fix DES/DPA/MoD(PE)

The root cause of most problems discussed here is senior RAF officers, not politicians or DE&S. As demonstrated on the successful "campaigns" conducted by a few retired officers and, mainly, civilians.


Instead of simply saying "fix DE&S", why not offer an opinion on what is wrong with DE&S (and by excluding DEC and HQ staffs you'll never identify the problem, never mind a fix), a proposed solution for ppruners to debate, why you think the opinions of others are wrong if they differ from yours, and tell us what your MP said when you put all this to him.

By mentioning DE&S, may I assume your major concern is waste of money? (Nimrod, Chinook Mk3 etc). If so, I agree.

The mandated means of avoiding waste (as far as possible) is to conduct Requirement Scrutiny. This is a legal obligation (to PUS), and to make a false declaration while exercising this obligation is to commit fraud.

In the past two months, the Head of the Civil Service (Sir Robert Kerslake) and Min(AF) (Mr Andrew Robothan MP) have both confirmed, in writing;

1. It is an offence to refuse to obey an order to make such a false declaration, and,

2. It is not an offence to issue this order to commit fraud.


Their replies contained precisely the same wording. That is, they were briefed by the very people who have, for many years, issued said orders and/or condoned them. The last time PUS was advised of this illegal activity, in an internal MoD report, he took no action. Nor did the PAC, HCDC or CSC. That report included a case study where one programme manager (myself) was instructed to knowingly waste over £100M per year, year on year, by an RAF Air Vice Marshall; by implementing a policy developed under an Air Chief Marshall (who, say it quietly, posts here). That's a lot of money when taken across a 6,000 or so procurement organisation subject to the same rulings. This policy was later fully endorsed and executed by the Chief of Defence Procurement (a retired Admiral).

I used to say that solving this problem would go a long way to solving MoD's financial "black hole". I haven't changed my mind. It is why I sympathise, to a degree, with HM Treasury. They see MoD as a bottomless pit of waste. The political failure is to have an independent review, instead of allowing the staffs responsible to judge their own case. At a certain level, the ongoing redundancies (both Servicemen and Civilian) is more case of the Treasury giving up on MoD policing itself, and taking this action as a last resort. It is way too late for Service Chiefs to say "If we stop wasting money can we reduce the redundancies and cut backs"? You may have noticed, serving VSOs tend to protect their predecessors/mentors.

What I'd propose today is for Government to freeze the cuts for a year, find a copy of the above report (by MoD's own admission they destroyed it, but I sent my own copy to the PAC last year - no reply) and set up an independent implementation team of the 19 recommendations (all of which fall into the "mandated policy" category so no new policy need be developed).

Keep a record of results (savings/efficiencies that do not affect capability) and reassess the need for cuts. This is precisely what we did in during the 6 years preceding the reports issue. The savings were truly astronomical. OC was enhanced. The disciplinary action from the RAF Chief Engineer and CDP swift and draconian. This time he and his like must be kept out of the loop. Discuss if you wish.

[susanlikescats]

As a relatively disinterested foreigner, I view the UK's decline - militarily and otherwise - with some amusement. Put simply, it shouldn't have happened. You had both the intellect and the resources to do so much better for so much longer.

You'll hate this, but it's those of you who are retiring now or retired in the past 15 or so years who must carry the can for breeding a generation of self-centred fools.

Ironic, isn't it? So much potential, so little achievement...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Very useful Tecumseh. I realise these things are very complex, and there is often a chicken-and-egg situation.
If PUS, PAC, HCDC, etc. take no action when advised of "illegal" activity, then they de facto condone it. The VSOs would not be doing the job their political masters want if they did not then continue said activity (I am walking on eggs here). Indeed, they may have commenced said activity precisely because their masters wanted it.
Alternatively, the VSOs may be acting for all the wrong reasons, and the politicians/civil service have no effective means of arguing with the 'experts'. And they've tried recruiting retired VSOs to play 'gamekeeper', but those retired VSOs are still 'poaching'.
My feeling is that the buck stops where the power is, and that's why I blame the politicians/senior civil servants.

Can I clarify your opinion? Are you saying the VSOs could fix it by doing proper Requirement Scrutiny?
I think it could be fixed by Ministers / DE&S exercising their legal duties, theoretically, except I do not think either are capable of this. As you say, they are being informed of what is going on, but are not taking action.

I did not write to my MP about Defence when I PVR'ed. I did write several times to my MP about the mess education was becoming, as he was a former teacher in my subject so I thought he would understand. To my final letter before emigrating, where I summarised what I though were the problems, and the potential solutions which I thought the current system was (sadly) incapable of implementing, his reply was "I agree. (it's) Madness. Good luck in Canada". This appears to be an admission of an insoluble problem.

[CoffmanStarter]

Here's a sobering thought chaps ... Yes I know it's one of those meaningless comparison statistics beloved of the tabloids ... BUT !

Apparently McDonalds now employ more people than there are in the British Army ...

I'm loving it ...

[pr00ne]

tucumesh,

In the past two months, the Head of the Civil Service (Sir Robert Kerslake) and Min(AF) (Mr Andrew Robothan MP) have both confirmed, in writing;

1. It is an offence to refuse to obey an order to make such a false declaration, and,

2. It is not an offence to issue this order to commit fraud.

Have you tried bringing the above to the attention of a decent investigative journalist?

I think a fair few would be very interested if there was something in terms of actual evidence.

[tucumseh]

Can I clarify your opinion? Are you saying the VSOs could fix it by doing proper Requirement Scrutiny?

When conducting RS the final declaration and signature is more often than not made by someone really quite junior (the project or programme manager with the technical and financial approval delegation). Even if you have one of the lesser delegations, you’ll still have sufficient power to sign for, say, £20M, which is enough for the vast majority of milestone payments. Bear in mind a financier does not approve expenditure, only endorses it. That is, the person with technical and financial delegation makes the written declaration that the proposed spend is “fair and reasonable” against a rigorous test (the main Requirement Scrutiny); the financier then “merely” writes down where and when the money is in the budget).


The basic problem arises when someone above you has, for example, already given the nod to the “requirement” or is applying pressure for delivery to be accepted. Pressure is applied to sign, not because they want to waste money, but because they do not want to be seen to be wrong or made to look foolish by a subordinate.



In theory, this should not be a problem if handled tactfully, but in practice it is seldom that simple. These days, very few are taught that when conducting RS you are not working for your line manager or superior, but direct to PUS. This is a difficult concept for superiors to accept, but once they do the sensible ones usually step back.



However, if he does apply pressure, at least the superior is acknowledging the subordinate’s delegated powers, and reasoned debate can take place (if the subordinate doesn’t cave in). Not caving in is part of the test that (should be) applied before granting delegation. (Which is another problem – delegation used to be a big deal; today it’s handed out to totally unsuitable staff).



Of greater concern is when a superior has self-delegated that technical and financial approval and over-rules the lower ranked person who does have the necessary delegation, and signs-off the approval himself. This is more normal among Civil Servants, since the advent of non-technical project/programme managers (who, by definition, cannot possibly have technical and financial delegation). This leads to situations whereby the project team is actually upside-down, as the subordinate has infinitely more authority and responsibility than the superior. This act of self-delegation is of course illegal, but if contained to financial matters “only” results in astronomical waste.



But in my experience, by far the worst examples have involved self-delegation and over-rules on both financial and technical/safety design issues. It is one thing to knowingly waste money, but when accompanied by decisions that render the equipment unsafe is simply criminal. The former is fraud, the latter can lead to manslaughter (and, of course, has done).



All of the examples I quote were subsumed within the rulings I mention.

So, it’s not a case of the VSOs doing proper RS, it’s a case of them allowing and encouraging it by refusing to countenance the type of behaviour I describe. Leading, not managing. As I’ve said before, the root of the recent rulings is 2/3/4 Stars actively preventing RS, by taking disciplinary action against those who try to do it properly.

Have you tried bringing the above to the attention of a decent investigative journalist?

Yes, but not interested, mainly because they don’t understand. I can understand this up to a point, but the real problem is that it has been formally brought to the attention of the MoD Police, PUS, Ministers, Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Civil Service Commissioners and, recently, Head of the Civil Service; and all have been seen to condone it. I fully accept that “all” these people do is refer the matter to MoD for comment, who simply ensure that the reply comes from a source who has most to lose if the policy is revealed.



In my mind it is the same as the closely related airworthiness failures (demonstrably, it was this waste, by AMSO, that caused them in the first place). For years the same thing happened. Letters to Ministers were referred to precisely the same MoD department, who replied on their behalf with the same words, year after year, denying any problem. But finally, if you persevere, you find a way of getting through. As happened on Mull of Kintyre, for example, you get to actually speak to a Minister who is prepared to listen and ask just one awkward question. (In the case of MoK, on the CHART report). Then the perpetrators’ lies are publicly exposed at the most senior level, they turn on each other and all is revealed. But the catalyst is an independent inquiry. As with airworthiness, the system at present cannot cope with the concept of anyone knowingly wasting money (or making an aircraft unsafe). In MoD there simply is no mechanism to counter an illegal order to waste money, not least because the perpetrator is allowed to judge his own case. This must change and, in fact, it is the only aspect that requires a formal change of rules. The rest is implementation of extant rules. Exactly the same as the airworthiness failures.