MoD slammed on troop over-stretch

[BEagle]

A most interesting report from the Commons Defence select committe......

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200407/76278d97-04f4-4f73-b4da-2ee39bd56cf2.htm

[Navaleye]

Bruce George is right. This is nothing to do with Defence needs and it isn't sensible. Its just about taking money out defence so it can be squandered elsewhere.

I tried to book a doctors appointment today, but was told I would have to wait 3 weeks. Why? Asylum seekers.

[Archimedes]

But Mr Hoon told us there wasn't any overstretch. I'm puzzled.

As to why he still has a job. :confused:

[pr00ne]

Navaleye (blinkered?)

How do you equate a 1% increase in the Defence budget, £2billion extra last year plus £600m for Iraq contingincies with "taking money out of defence"?


I booked to see my Dr yesterday at 9, saw him today at 11.


Pesky Asylum seekers eh? Responsible for all our ills and woes, do you know the % of potential Asylum seekers who are fully trained Dr's? I think you'd be quite surprised!

[BEagle]

pr00ne - is your real name Hoon? Or possibly Blair??

[Navaleye]

Pr00ne,

You'd better get a visit to the optician organised as well because you clearly cannot see what is happening around you.

Do you live in the Orkneys or Shetland or maybe even the FI?

[Jackonicko]

Proone,

I suspect that we share some common ground. Like you I'm disquieted when the redneck tendency start rattling off words like 'liberal' in a derogatory way, and I worry when people use the coded language ('asylum seekers', 'Tony Martin') which is so often a cover for the worst kind of ignorant knee-jerk far right attitudes.

But unlike you, I don't accept that grinning Tony is any better (or much worse) than the shockingly awful Thatcherite and post Thatcher Conservatives or the ineffectual liberal democrats. I think that we're currently very badly served by our politicians and face a very poor range of choices. And I fear that that's as true in health and education as it is in defence.

I do think that Labour's defence reviews so far have been better than I'd have dared hope, but expect the next one to have much more serious effects. There may or may not be a real-terms rise (these politicos have become so adept at double-counting money that it will take years to figure it out) in cash terms, but there is no doubt that there will be cuts to present force structure and in service equipment, and that these cuts will be imposed to safeguard funding on a number of high profile future programmes (Astute, Nimrod 4, CVF, Typhoon).

And much of the blame must go to the Government, who have failed to halt the delays and cost increases in these massively expensive, sometimes uncompetitively procured and often wasteful programmes, and who have failed to offer adequate oversight, direction or management.

Because of these programmes, money is undeniably being taken away from our current defence budget, largely to further 'featherbed' particular contractors and their shareholders.

Part of the answer must be to squander less of the defence budget, as well as to fight the diversion of more of it to 'squander' elsewhere.

[pr00ne]

Navaleye, (blind AND blinkered)

I live between London and Oxford, I know exactly what is happening around me, I just happen to have a sense of perspective and refuse to accept the nonsensical meanderings of the Daily Mail on issues such as Asylum.

Jackonicko,

Agree on the redneck issue BUT, please do not think that I have any time for our political masters, of whatever persuasion. I just get very rattled when simple prejudice as shown by the Daily Mail and the likes of Navaleye, get in the way of decent rational debate. Yes, there is an issue with the current size and shape of our armed forces, I just do not accept that that is purely a political affair, the current crop of military leaders are just as much to blame.

I also get frustrated when people resort to misinformation and talk about Defence Cuts when there is no such thing happening, that doesen't mean that I agree with what Hoon and Blair are doing, just as I deplored how Thatcher and her crowd treated the military.

I joined the RAF in the late 60's and left in the very early 80's. Many of my friends are still in as very senior officers and a lot of what I hear from them I cannot repeat as it was told me in confidence and after all is only hearsay.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

prOOne:rolleyes:

"I also get frustrated when people resort to misinformation and talk about Defence Cuts when there is no such thing happening"

According to CASWO, and if he don't know noone does, watch out on the 12th, if the report is announced that day, for a quote "spectacular" unqote.........meaning stand by to take it up the tail pipe big style:sad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[pr00ne]

ABIW,

Fine, but will this be a cut in Defence Expenditure or a readjustment in force structures to equip the forces for a new and quite different future?

The Defence White Paper in Feb announced reductions in the numbers of fast jets required, the number of escort vessels required and a realignment in the Heavy/Light mix of the Army.

So no one can act all shocked and feign surprise if an announcement is made that cuts fast jet numbers and squadrons, reduces the number of frigates and destroyers in the RN and takes out a % of heavy armour and artillery.

1974/5, now that was a REAL Defence cut!


Not saying that I agree with or support any of this BTW.

[Navaleye]

PrOOne, I'm just a simple sailor, but from where I sit a reduction in assets in just about every area, manpower, ships, planes, soldiers, tanks etc = defence cut.

My advice regarding your eyesight relates to this not asylum seekers.

[BEagle]

Bruce George seems to think so as well:

George warned that cutting the number of troops, ships or aircraft is "not sensible".

[Jackonicko]

A real and meaningful "readjustment in force structures to equip the forces for a new and quite different future" would mean increases in FJ, helo. tanker force numbers to allow multiple and/or sustained simultaneous deployments without overstretch and without reliance on what may be temporary coalition partners. It would require Britain to have all of the required clubs in its golf bag, so you'd keep SHar and carriers and fund SEAD and recce. It would require greater investment in 'home defence', QRA, etc. It would be much more expensive than merely configuring your forces for Cold War requirements, though you might be able to shed some heavy armour, SSBNs, etc.

Therefore if Labour describe force reductions as "a readjustment in force structures to equip the forces for a new and quite different future" then they're being disingenuous tossers.

Just for a change.

[JessTheDog]

I am slightly concerned that the cut in full-time numbers may lead to a situation similar to what the US forces are experiencing ,where large swathes of those who thought they had left are having call-up papers dropped through their letter box. I am due to leave soon and would don my kit again in a national crisis, as that is what RFA 96 is geared towards. However, if reservists are recalled as a temporary source of cheap labour to overcome cost-driven manning shortfalls then any certain envelopes coming through my door will be redirected straight into the bin, perhaps after immolation!

[VP959]

I understand that Gordon Brown is to announce the spending review outcome on the 12th, followed by the Defence Secretary announcing the outcome of the workstrand activity on the 16th. Farnborough should be fun, no doubt there will be much mutterings in dark corners..............

As for cuts, well, from what I can see there are some definite and very real cuts being made in certain areas, particularly in the procurement of some equipments. Programmes will be cut back, delayed or axed, of that I am absolutely certain. I am also certain that there will be basing cuts as well, and that it seems highly probable that manpower will be reduced by a fair margin. I predict that the RAF will suffer most with manpower cuts.

pr00ne, if I'm completely and utterly wrong on this, please feel free to come back on here and tell me so. .....................

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko

Crikey - I can't find anything in what you just wrote that I disagree with. I glad you said "some" heavy armour could be shed and not all, as some have proposed......

Many infantry units are equipped with Warrior Infantry Fighting vehicles. These protect the troops until they have to demount for the assault. They also provide fire support with the 30mm cannon that they are fitted with.

Tanks, whilst perhaps not needed in the numbers they used to be (mind you we deployed 160 or so Challengers in Gulf War 1, how many did we deploy last year?) were/are attached to Warrior equipped units to protect them from Iraqi armour.

[Trumpet_trousers]

...there seems to be a lot of unease regarding cuts, and a sense of incredulity too...... was there not a tacit acknowledgement after the early 90's cuts that they went too far?
It's fairly common knowledge that the manpower we have NOW is barely enough, and overstretch is commonplace; BUT: what our lords and masters fail to comprehend is the PERSONAL side of such things.......quality of life etc.
If you p*ss enough people around, they will almost certainly vote with their feet.....loyalty is very definately a 2-way street, although at times, in fact most of the time, it is hard to appreciate that comment.......

Once your trained and loyal manpower has gone, it will take years to recover the situation, if at all.

[17 years, manandboy]

Hands up all those people counting the days till year 22 or age 38..................

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Not me ...........in to 55 followed by pension and retirement:ok:

However extra effort for the next 8 years............not feckin likely:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[The Gorilla]

Look I don't know what you are all getting worked up about!!

Is it not a fact that after every war/crisis/operation since the Falkands, the Services have had large cuts in defence spending?

So why should this time be any different??

Though I am glad I beat the rush!!

:ok:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Overstretch at the coal face hurts:sad:

Overstretch at Flt Cdr level exists but is not acknowleged as it is not carrear healthy:}

So at Sqn Boss and above life is rosy:rolleyes:

30 years in and nothing changes:yuk:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Archimedes]

Buff was quoted on the BBC 10'o clock news - usual line that he didn't accept that the armed forces were overstretched or undermanned , but 'we have asked a lot of the logisticians and enablers'.

So that's alright then.

[CatpainCaveman]

Let's just hope that Prudence, Buffoon and Bliar haven't been looking at the continent for hints and tips on what to do. The Austrian government has just endorsed the recommendation of an all-party defence reform commission to cut the size of the armed forces by 50%. Bu**ger!!!! And, if as Buffoon states, we aren't over stretched, why has my desk just told me that he is looking at sending me back to the sandpit for the 3rd time in under 18 months??!!

I can see that the threat has changed since the good old days of the Cold War and that we no longer need Wings of bombers and fighters, divisions of armour etcetc to face the Soviet threat. However everything that has happened in recent years re defence cuts, or should I say strategic re-alignment, has happened because those in charge and that make the decisions have no concept of what we do and what we need or the real level of threat that we face.

During the Cold War, we had how many divs, sqns, ships, all targetted against a known and quantifiable threat? Now we don't know specifically what the threat is, we canbnot specifically quantify it, it is very nebulus and keeps cropping up simultaneously in various parts of the world./

Now I am all for work smarter not harder, and as such yes, if gadgets and technology can make the difference, then lets crack on. But given the nebulous and geographically simultaneous threats, there is one thing that even a computer hasn't worked out how to do yet - make resources cut to the bone and spread extremely thinly appear in more than one place at the same time.

It's all well and good having technological superiority, but it hasn't really helped in recent years has it? For all their AD/SPACOM facilities (eg Cheyenn Mountain), the US couldn't stop 9-11. and what use would having a Bn of computer wizards be in Iraq at the moment when we need the presence of people on the ground.

If there are any senior officers reading this, please please please, from someone at the coalface dealing with ops everyday, think very carefully before reducing numbers to pay for fancy gadgets that will not do anything to enhance our capability in the sort of ops we are currently involved in. Hoon is an idiot - little more than a barrack room lawyer interested only in his career by pleasing Trust-me Tone. He has no idea of what we do, what we need to do our job and the implications - possibly measured in body bags, of decimating our armed forces. The civil servants too are a bunch of career minded jobs-worths. They will do what they are told and nothing else, regardless of the impact it has on the country. And unfortunately I am increasingly beginning to think that their Airships are not much better as we rarely see any attempt to stick up for the armed forces.

We are in the profession of war. We are not a business. Our profit and loss margins are based in terms of the numbers of body bags rocking up at Brize when we go on one of Tone's crusades. Remember that next time you try and measure what we do on a balance sheet.

[mbga9pgf]

Suggestion...

Perhaps the Govt should announce a 25% cutback in Benefits spending on the basis that 200 Billion gets spent a year, yet the same work-shy dredge leaves the system annually no different to when they entered it... that would leave 50 Billion extra to fund health, education and have some on the side to support our extremely hard working Armed Forces, who, with only a tenth of the benefits spending figure, provide the highest quality labour force in the country. May be unpopular with some inner city areas, but it certainly might get some of us apathetic types to get up and vote.

Besides, why should we allow those types voting rights that blatantly have no intention of supporting this country or any one else other than themselves?

Queue response from the left wing....

[BillHicksRules]

mbga9pgf,

Before I start where did u get that name :D

As to your post. I am considered on here by many as a leftie/luvvie. I personally do not label myself but there you go.

However, I agree with you to some degree. My idea is one that has been mooted many times before and that is the re-introduction of National Service. However, rather than make for all at a certain age instead make it for those unable to get and keep a job, both male and female, between 18 and 55.

I would suggest that it be set out in this manner.

1) If you have been unemployed for more than 12 months, then you go.
2) If you have had a job in the last 12 months but it lasted less than 6 months and you are now unemployed, then you go.
3) You serve for 5 years
4) After 5 years you are offered 2 choices: stay in or take one of 3 jobs offered to you. These jobs are guaranteed to last for at least 2 years financially speaking, however if you are fired or leave you go straight back to the forces and start from scratch.

This is only the bare bones of an idea so I would be interested what everyone else has to say about it.

Cheers

BHR

[whowhenwhy]

BHR, love the plan, only one problem. The people that you'd get!

Now I'm sorry that this is a generalization and that many unemployed people are not in that situation voluntarily and would react well to the challenge of life in the armed forces; however, there are many that are just wasters and would not react well. You might call them socially inept. They are unemployed because they are unemployable. Do we really want these people in our armed forces?

[BillHicksRules]

WWW,

I understand what you are saying but when the alternative is to support them all their life I think it is worth it. I have a high regard and respect for those in the training sections of the various UK armed forces. They can turn boys into men. This challenge is not above their abilities.

As I have said the alternative is far worse. Lifetime support for them and more increasingly their offspring. There are families in this country that are on the 3rd and 4th generation of benefits. Do we just give up on these people? No, that is too easy and too expensive.

I know of at least two of the people I went to school with that are now grandparents. I am only 32. Their parents were on benefits, they are on benefits, their kids are on benefits and what chance for these newborns?

As for conscription into the armed forces, it was good enough in two World Wars.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

Cheers

BHR;)

[pr00ne]

VP959,

I don't think your going to be very far out in what you expect, but it is still not going to be a CUT in Defence expenditure!


The Gorilla,

The leaked cabinet spending review showed a 1% increase in defence expenditure. How do you work that out as a cut?


mbga9pgf,

"work shy dredge?"

Wow, someone who makes Navaleye look like a Guardian reading Liberal democrat!

[Jackonicko]

pr00ne,

Regardless of the figure on the bottom line, if the spending review results in having to disband units, withdraw aircraft, ships, or other equipment without replacement, or if manpower is further reduced, or if the MoD is forced to cancel requirements, only some slimy, dishonest New Labour spin-monkey would argue that the effect was anything other than a package of cuts. Calling it a 'realignment' does not make it any such thing, any more than I'd be entitled to a rum ration if I called myself Admiral Lord Nelson.

mbga9pgf and BHR,

While there are undeniably 'workshy' scroungers among the unemployed, there are equally very many people who are the innocent victims of .... let's call it circumstance. The appalling failures in education and training, coupled with the decline of traditional industries and the lack of sensible employment creation policies in the areas affected have left many people without any prospect of work, through no fault of their own. I'm trying not to get political and blame Thatcher, here..... In any event, to discriminate against the 'deserving unemployed' would not be something which most true Brits would condone - we have a social conscience, a sense of fair play, and a rudimentary grasp of right and wrong, after all.

Pushing the unemployed into the Armed Forces is equally barking. The fact that conscripts were used in the Great War is entirely irrelevant. Most artillery was still horse-drawn and most ships employed gangs of stokers and had very young midshipmen, etc. In today's high tech forces, all-volunteer is the best way to go. There might be an argument to make benefits conditional on doing 'socially useful' work for the community, but one would have to be careful not to 'undercut' or replace real jobs, and we should surely recognise that the unemployed have a right to their dignity.

[the_grand_dad]

Always_broken_in_wilts

Not me ...........in to 55 followed by pension and retirement

keep your eye out for this one it could raise its ugly head again to save money

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-37327/exparachuteregimentwebsite/id118.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F29%2Fnsquad29.xml

[BillHicksRules]

Jacko,

This is probably pushing me in a direction I do not want to go but here goes.

I hardly feel that getting a days work out of someone and paying them for it, along with providing room, board and training, can be seen as discrimination.

As for what most true Brits would feel about continuing to support those unwilling to support themselves, I think they would be closer to my opinion than yours, but that is just my opinion and I have no data to support it.

Please note that I continue to refer to those unwilling. I am very aware that there will always be those who are unable to be gainfully employed due to medical conditions. However, the percentage of people claiming “on the social” that are medically incapable of working at any job is IIRC in the single figure bracket. The armed forces have thousands of non-combat roles being filled by combat trained and capable personnel. Tie this up with the millions of unemployed and there has to be some sort of solution to several problems there.

If I give you a 50-50 split of able to work to unable to work, at current numbers that still amounts to approx 500,000 bodies acting as a drain on society for no good reason.

As you say there are many innocent victims of economic pressures. These people only want to work and feel useful again. This can help them get back on their feet. Give them back some self-esteem and put them back on track.

A thought that just came to me is that during the time served by those in this scheme, every effort and opportunity should be given to them to acquire recognised qualifications that will help them back in civilian life.

As I said I am aware that this idea is not perfect but I feel it is worth pursuing further in this forum.

Thanks for your input

Cheers

BHR

[JessTheDog]

Is this a "real" 1% increase or...

a. A drop in the ocean when the cost of Telic is considered?
b. One that has been announced before?
c. Counterbalanced by the savings in the supposedly "cost neutral" new pension scheme?

I now have no loyalty towards anybody senior than my Gp Captain and I feel actively disloyal towards anyone above 2*, particularly politicians and civil servants. Our loyalty is not reciprocated and I am hoping I can keep my typing fingers under control until I am safely in civilian life!

[whowhenwhy]

Jacko, totally agree. With the kind of technology used nowadays we wouldn't be able to use people the way that BHR is suggesting! BHR, the problem with what you suggest about freeing-up trained troops for front-line service is that all those people are being used for front-line service already and getting rotated in and out of posts in the UK. When they're out of the country their post is gapped. You'd have to create new posts for the unemployed to go to and that would mean a huge increase in the size of HMF, not politically acceptable. Jacko, back to you. 'Socially useful' work, apart from the H&S angle, which I'm sure many would try and pull, it's a great idea. Stuff the idea of demeaning people. If they are on benefits and unemployed then they should, if they can, work for it. Litter picking, graffiti cleaning the list is endless. When they re-nationalize the rail industry they could all work on the trains! :ok: