Armed Forces overstretched [Archive]

Cambridge Crash

15th Jun 2005, 07:25

Adam Ingram is a light-weight - I have just listened to him prattling on Radio 4, under the interrogation of John Humphreys. He disingenuously highlighted that there are more troops in NI (irrespective of Home Service units) than Iraq and Afghanistan and has not addressed the isssue of overstretch. 'Och aye' Ingram was completely lost for words when challenged about MCT hours. Came out with the typical right-wing new Labour 'lines to take' such as 'creating a healthy debate' and 'beginning to understand the issues of preceeding (ie Conservative) years'.

The sooner that the Prime Minister ditches his expeditionary 'ethical' Foreign Policy and focusses on Britain's soft power strengths, the better for the forces.

CC

An Teallach

15th Jun 2005, 08:26

Cambridge Crash

It's Jockinese Mafia, dear boy. However, I must protest at the inherent racist undertones of your post. You give the impression that you feel Ingram is a knob because he is Scots.

I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment that Ingram is an intellectual lightweight who merely troops out the 'party line' time after time. However, I would like to remind M' Learning Friend that Ingram has, for years, merely been Buff Hoon's amanuensis. He knows nothing more than how to trip out his boss's and/or Civil Serpents' drafted drivel.

In other words: We're nae short o Scots numpties, jist as ye're nae short o Inglis yins. They're numpties by dint o their bein numpties, not by dint o bein Scots or Inglis!

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 09:08

Well done the NAO! 50% of the reason that I handed my kit in was the absolute barking mad cutbacks imposed in the face of common sense by professional liars like Ingram who will happily hide behind the fact that Armed Forces personnel will give 100% regardless of circumstances.

Now why couldn't this story have run pre-election?

BEagle

15th Jun 2005, 10:28

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_6_05_naomilitary.pdf for the full NAO report.

JessTheDog - part of MY reason was suffering under the inadequately testiculated who, with stars in their eyes, wouldn't stand up and say "NO!!".......

flipster

15th Jun 2005, 10:32

Jess - I am with you on this one.
Beags - The outcome of no-one saying "No" IS overstretch - so they are closely linked.

Has anyone out there left, or is about to leave, the Services because of the overstretch, either wholly or in part? If so, just post.

"Me too"

If enough of us do that, perhaps it might add a smidgin of weight to the NAO argument that 'doing more with less', with no kit, no training, no support and seeing our loved ones and our country less and less, is simply taking advantage, for political gain, of our fellow Servicemen and Servicewomen.

It has got to stop, or otherwise, it will end in humiliating defeat - somewhere, sometime and with great loss of life - that of our friends and families. It seems no-one up on high has learnt the lessons of history.

So..............."ME TOO"

flat-coat

15th Jun 2005, 10:36

ME TOO

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 10:44

I now wish I had kept copies of my PVR application and the response I sent to a Gp Capt who had asked me for feedback.

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 10:51

Notwithstanding what the NAO have to say I must admit that I have not seen any evidence of overstretch. Life here in the FAA is fun, buzzing and the future is very clear and bright. We have recently taken delivery of a world class ASW aircraft and the SKW is also first rate. Larry the Lynx is due to be replaced initally with a software upgrade and then eventually with a Lynx replacement.

We have a lot of new T45 destroyers on the horizon and maybe if we are lucky we will take delivery of new aircraft carriers within the next 12-15 years.

As far as work goes, then the tempo is the same as it has been since 1982. We work hard, play hard and fight hard. No change. Flying hours are at a premium - we had a little glitch last year but this year have been told to fly as much as we can.

So, where is this overstretch?

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 10:57

vecvechookattack is either drunk or a co-author of the infamous faked RN/RAF letter to the Times welcoming the demise of the SHAR.

So, where is this overstretch?

Establishments where the most common surname is "gapped".

My establishment of 4, of whom 2 were due to be sent OOA simultaneously.

Also, one married couple where wifey went away for an OOA and had a few weeks overlap before hubby went away.

That's just off the top of my head.

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 11:04

My establishment of 4, of whom 2 were due to be sent OOA simultaneously.

Also, one married couple where wifey went away for an OOA and had a few weeks overlap before hubby went away.

so, why is that overstretch? My oppo went OOA for 6 months and his ship handed over to the ship his Mrs was on....and they didn’t get to see each other....result...12 months apart. But that has been happening since ladies were allowed in the services. That’s not overstretch....just inconvenient.

Your Establishment of 4 of which 2 were OOA simultaneously….? So that’s 50% OOA and 50% back at home…? And you call that overstretch. Don’t tell me, you’d prefer it iof you were all at home.

zedder

15th Jun 2005, 11:04

Does anyone know a source that provides the percenatges for the RAF, RN and Army that are on duty away from home for say 125, 150, 175 or 200+ days per year, and provided for maybe the last 5 years. I've seen some numbers somewhere previously (can't remember the source). The Government would probably point out that the numbers have been decreasing over recent years. That's not bl**dy surprsing really is it, seeing as there are less of us to send away! That's why I'd like to see the figures as percentages.

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 11:11

Your Establishment of 4 of which 2 were OOA simultaneously….? So that’s 50% OOA and 50% back at home…? And you call that overstretch. Don’t tell me, you’d prefer it iof you were all at home.

My establishment at that time was a "shore" establishment and the posts would be considered "harmony" posts in naval parlance. So everyone in that instance was meant to be at home! PMA were casting around deperately for warm bodies to meet an OOA committment. Overstretch. Cut the task burden or increase the manning. It is simple but obviously too difficult for MoD.

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 11:45

I think you may be mixing up Harmony with Shore posts etc. I am currently based at a shore establishment BUT in a front line job AND expected to go to sea, deploy etc etc. Being posted to a shore base does not relinquish you of sea duties.

Cut the task burden or increase the manning

or, rather than wasting time and energy moaning about overstretch and gapping and lack of money....how about we manage the problem better

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 11:54

or, rather than wasting time and energy moaning about overstretch and gapping and lack of money....how about we manage the problem better

The Armed Forces are in a dire situation due to years of cutbacks. It has now gone too far. Someone must speak up - to do otherwise is discarding moral courage in favour of career-advancing acquiescence.

The Armed Forces cannot speak out and are dependant upon a supine command chain and duplicitous politicians. It is only bodies such as the NAO (recall the not enough choppers report) and the Commons Defence Committee (treated contemptuously by the MoD) that advance the case of the Armed Forces but this is not enough. When Britain assumes the ARRC role in Afghanistan next year, the crisis in overstrech and underfunding may come to a head.

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 12:24

The Armed Forces are in a dire situation due to years of cutbacks.

No it isn't. What cutbacks????? I think you will find that defence spending has increased. There has not been any cut in defence spending.

All of this moaning and groaning is purely RAF whinging because they have had the size of their Hotel rooms reduced. The reprt states that the Air Force are spending one hour less per month in the air. Based on a normal year with annual leave etc this would equate to a reduction in hours per pilot of 10 hours per year. hmmmmm, that doesn't sound like overstretch does it?

What you have to remember is that the report stated that the problems affected 2% of the armed forces - which means that 98% are fine and doing dandy thank you very much. The report was also for last year and doesn't take into consideration any changes since it was compiled.

Bob Viking

15th Jun 2005, 12:33

Vecvec.
You clearly love the FAA and believe that it is the be all and end all of the UK's armed forces but when are you going to pull your head out of your backside and look around the rest of the military.
Just cos you're having a great time and not being overstretched doesn't mean nobody is. I realise that sometimes Navy fellas go away for months at a time but thats up to you. Do you really think it is acceptable for the same people to be sent overseas all the time as a result of cutbacks.
How do you think the men of the Black Watch felt at the end of a six month tour to be told they had to stay a couple more months. Even thought their Battalion is apparently surplus to requirements.
BV

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 12:43

No it isn't. What cutbacks????? I think you will find that defence spending has increased. There has not been any cut in defence spending.

From the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3912283.stm

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has announced large cuts in the armed forces as part of modernisation plans.
By 2008 the RAF will shed 7,500 jobs, the Navy 1,500 with a further 10,000 civilian posts also lost. Aircraft, tank and ship numbers will also be cut.

Flexibility and the ability to fight far from the UK is key, says Mr Hoon.

Tory Nicholas Soames said personnel would feel "betrayed politically and morally" and the public would be "dismayed" by "underhand" treatment.

For the Lib Dems, Paul Keetch said: "Iraq has shown that winning the peace needs more troops on the ground than winning the war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4102013.stm

Details of plans for Army restructuring were announced by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon on Thursday.
Four infantry battalions are to be axed, reducing the number from 40 to 36.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4337601.stm

Scale of RAF job losses revealed
About 1,000 RAF workers in Scotland are to lose their jobs under UK Government plans to cut the armed forces.
RAF Lossiemouth will suffer 700 job cuts, the base at Kinloss 180 and a further 160 will go at RAF Leuchars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4399221.stm

Nimrod squadron disbanded in cuts
One of the three squadrons based at RAF Kinloss has disappeared as part of controversial military cutbacks. 206 Squadron, which was created in World War I, flew its final Nimrod mission on Thursday and was officially disbanded on Friday.
The number of Nimrods at the Moray base is falling from 21 to 16, with 80 air crew set to be moved to other jobs.

Also - withdrawl of the Jaguar and the Sea Harrier, the latter leaving a glaring gap in fleet air defence that will not be credibly filled by a AIM-9 equipped radarless GR7/9.

Further readings on overstretch and underfunding:

"Undermanning persists in key areas" NAO report 11 Dec 03, p.29.

"There is a considerable deficit in the availability of helicopter lift" NAO report 7 Apr 04, p.31. 38% short until 2017 on the MoD's own calculations.

"Many platforms lack the ability to operate effectively in warfighting environments" above report, p.32.

The argument as to an "increase" in defence spending is not credible. The adoption of the RAB methodology comprehensively changed the MoD balance sheet. I was told by a 4-ringer before leaving that the MoD was effectively bankrupt. I also had the mixed pleasure of working with DPA and can see why!

Vim_Fuego

15th Jun 2005, 12:47

A nasty rumour passed my way the other day via dining in the mess and having decent hearing...and this being a thread on overstretch it is as good a place as any to post it. It was about the RAF coming down further in numbers by 2008-9...drastically further down. I don't want to post the numbers because in my mind they are low conf at the moment but anyone else hearing this?

SASless

15th Jun 2005, 12:49

From the stories I have been reading about the debacles in buying things....they may be spending more money...but getting very little for it.

opso

15th Jun 2005, 13:06

Maybe an agreed definition of overstretch would help. I would suggest that you are overstretched when: Non-RN personnel spend more than 6 months per year away from home or family (many RN personnel joined specifically to go away on long cruises whereas the other Services didn't), or
Gapped posts or NFU OOA commitments cause a loss of leave or denial of attendance on professional courses for the remaining personnel, or
Increased workloads or reduced manning levels mean that the majority of your personnel routinely works upwards of 50 hours per week, or
A utilised capability is reduced below levels of demand owing to 'funding issues', or
Maintenance of building and/or equipment is repeatedly deferred in order to divert funds to 'more pressing' issues.
How would others define overstretch?

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 13:26

These are the Royal Navies responses from the most recent Continuous attitude survey:
% of people satisfied
The ability to plan your own life - 57%
The adequacy of your training - 77%
Amount of leave 87%
Entitlements 56%
Effectivenesss of the divisional system 75%
Rates of flying pay 90% did not respond !!!
Job satisfaction 71%
Working hours 79%
pension 88%
enjoyment of service life 76%

so, that proves it then. we are all pi$$ed off and want to leave. Hmmmmm

and as for the comment....

Do you really think it is acceptable for the same people to be sent overseas all the time as a result of cutbacks.

and .......

How do you think the men of the Black Watch felt at the end of a six month tour to be told they had to stay a couple more months ...

what do you think this is??..the bloomin womens auxillary balloon corps???

You have to remember that only the RAF mank and moan when they are deployed. Everyone else gets on with it and enjoys it as that is what we joined for. Not to be based in an outpost in Lincolnshire for 20 years.

BEagle

15th Jun 2005, 13:28

"...All of this moaning and groaning is purely RAF whinging because they have had the size of their Hotel rooms reduced"

This started out as a sensible thread concerning the overstretch which has been getting steadily worse since 1991. Such a puerile rant displays breathtaking naivety and a very immature outlook.

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 13:56

The Department has consistently exceeded the level of activity it plans to be able to sustain as a norm in recent years and expects to do so for the foreseeable future.

so there you are. How is that stretch when we are exceeding our level of activity? If we are exceeding our level then we are clearly not being stretched but working well within limits. If we were being stretched then would we be reaching our limits...surely, you only "stretch" if you cannot "reach" but if you are reaching then youi cannot be stretching.

Bob Viking

15th Jun 2005, 14:04

Hurrah for you.
Long live the Navy.
I bet you're a popular guy to have around on joint exercises. Since you have such a bee in your bonnet about the RAF is there some sort of deep seated resentment perhaps?
Keep it up though because you seem to be making yourself pretty popular.
I have to agree with Beagle on this one. You try to come across as a learned expert on these matters but actually come across as a bit of a b@ll end.
BV

vecvechookattack

15th Jun 2005, 14:08

and another thing.

98% of Force Commanders have NO critical weaknesses. This is an increase from 80% just 2 years ago. So how is that overstretch?

Please don't confuse overstretch with hard work. Working 18 hours a day during a 6 month delpoyment is hard work BUT it is not over stretch.

airborne_artist

15th Jun 2005, 14:28

Perhaps the apologists for Adam Ingrams would care to explain this one:

"The Army's medical corps is suffering a manning crisis that has forced the Government to use expensive agency doctors and nurses to maintain field hospitals in Iraq, it was disclosed yesterday.

The Ministry of Defence admitted it was using agency staff to fulfil "a shortfall in capability of our own nurses".

More agency staff may have to be used as the pool of available TA medics shrinks while the British commitment in Iraq continues.

...The RAMC is desperately short of permanent staff with up to 70 per cent shortfalls in some areas, particularly for surgeons and anaesthetists.

During recent conflicts the Army has relied on other countries' medical personnel, particularly America's."

From the Telegraph, June 9th, 2005

Full article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/09/narmy09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/06/09/ixportal.html)

Weezer

15th Jun 2005, 14:31

vecvechookattack

so there you are. How is that stretch when we are exceeding our level of activity? If we are exceeding our level then we are clearly not being stretched but working well within limits. If we were being stretched then would we be reaching our limits...surely, you only "stretch" if you cannot "reach" but if you are reaching then youi cannot be stretching.

Sorry old boy - don't understand your banter. If I cannot reach something it doesn't matter how much I stretch for it! However, I'm sure Adam Ingram would be delighted to have you on his staff as you have achieved the remarkable by managing to develop logic to show that 'consistently exceeded the level of activity it plans to be able to sustain as a norm' is somehow a good thing.

Not going to rise to your RAF-centric hook. However, my (very) recent experience working with the CHF in an operational theatre would tend to suggest that not everyone in the RN is wearing your model of rose-tinted glasses.

On second thoughts - I will rise. Not everyone in the RAF deploys to hotels either! By the way how is your world-class ASW helicopter really coping, given the fact that there is insufficient funding available to support the fleet?

Spotting Bad Guys

15th Jun 2005, 14:38

You do talk bollox, VecVec. If you are constantly operating above planned limits, then there is no overstretch? So we just re-draw the lines? What do you think happens to all those establishments back in the UK when they are supporting high OOA manning levels...does the workload reduce? No, what happens is that everyone left has to pick up the work of those deployed.

98% of Force Commanders have no critical weakness - by whose standards? Try reading the reports regarding the difficulties experienced by all levels of command across the services and Coalition. Comms, personnel, equipment shortages, desert kitting, lack of spares...the list is long and painful.

And before you continue your anti-RAF diatribe, I'm one of those (to use the current term) low-density, high demand high-deployment rate people, and if you care to speak to PMA, the percentage of which is on the increase! Hotels...you are SERIOUSLY out of date....

:*

SBG

A D ENUFF

15th Jun 2005, 14:40

The days of people saying what needs to be said are well and truly gone. To get on in life nowadays you need to be a YES man.You dont reach great heights by banging the table, creating waves,rattling sabres and crossing swords with those above you.

You reach great heights by treading on those below you to such a point that they feel completely de-moralised and worthless. When you've done that, you tell those above that everything is just fine cos thats what they want to hear.

They dont give a toss that we're over stretched, or that our morale is lower than a snakes belly.

They need to wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late. Or is it too late for that ?!!!!!!

Steps down from soap box to continue filling in PVR.......................................... After 30yrs service !!

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 14:40

The increased use of reservists is indeed biting:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/41166.html

Army struggles as third of TA soldiers resign

SCOTLAND is running out of part-time soldiers to plug gaps in the ranks of overstretched regulars serving in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan, The Herald can reveal.
As many as 37% of the Territorial Army's most-experienced members are understood to have quit in the past year, as employers and families rebel against the prospect of losing them to repeated six-month absences on dangerous military duty every three years.
The retention crisis has become so acute that students are being offered £1500 to sign up for a six-week boot-camp training course in the Outer Hebrides, designed to persuade them to stay on as "weekend warriors".

I was a reservist before joining full-time and, now I am back in civviedom, there is nothing that will persuade me to return to uniform in the current climate.

uknasa

15th Jun 2005, 15:01

airborne_artist

Sadly the medical services were desimated during DCS and as a consequence, the military no longer offers the varied and broas career opportunities to medical folk that it once did - hence the severe shortage of qualified staff and the dreadful recruitment/retention problems.

Not defending Ingram at all - but in the current circumstances, you either have to use agency staff (and pay the premium) or you try to undo the damage caused by DCS (DCS 19 I think?). And while it was the Tories that demanded buget cuts in DCS, it was the senior military staff and civil servants in MOD that came up with the measures - another example of senior staff having no real power/authority beyond the Services.

Onan the Clumsy

15th Jun 2005, 15:10

The cousins are having a similar, problem. I heard recruiting targets have been missed every month this year, some places (Seattle is one) they are as low as 50%. There are also stories of recruiters getting into trouble because they are using 'unsuitable tactics' just to get the quota.

Reserve and Guard units are understaffed because many people are reacting to the constant and long term deployments by not re-upping.

So not over stretching from a budgetary point of view, but maybe from an availability perspective.

Roland Pulfrew

15th Jun 2005, 15:12

VVHA

You are either stupid or naïve, or perhaps worse, both.

In the MOD there is a government-sponsored level of planned activity for HM Forces. This is the policy driven, government directed level of activity that the Forces are supposed to be able to maintain for certain lengths of time (and does not include large scale operations or wars of national survival). The manning and equipment structure is supposed to be driven by the scale and number of concurrent operations. If we exceed these levels of concurrency you are automatically into the realms of overstretch. For LS or Wars of National Survival concurrency rules go out of the window, as do harmony, training etc etc.

Different formations can support different levels of scale so there is no one size fits all for all formations. For the FAA you will not be any where near the concurrency limits at present as you are not deployed in large numbers.

Within the 'rules' for these scales of operation are other factors. These include support to standing commitments, training, harmony, leave entitlements etc etc. If you are operating beyond these levels you are into the realms of "overstretch". This is something that Buff refused to admit existed, however the NAO (not usually a friend to HM Forces) has now reported that "overstretch" does exist. Now and across all three services.

If you are happy in your (tiny) little part of the system, then good for you. But it would appear from your posts that you know very little about the roles and overstretch of many other areas of HM Forces. You should enjoy the flying whilst you can but know that other areas are not being treated so generously. And stupid name calling about hotac, RAF Lincolnshire etc do nothing to support your position - one could easily retort about FAA Cornwall. I enjoy detachments as much as the next person (I did not join the RAF to stay at home and have enjoyed all my Op Dets) but when your office is running at half strength because of OOA detachments that does not mean half the work disappears. Sadly it means that those remaining have to pick up the work of Sqn Ldr Gapped or Lt Cdr Gapped or Maj Gapped. That is overstretch.

VF

35K ?????? It isn't a rumour!

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 15:29

35K ?????? It isn't a rumour!

Ouch!

What to cut?

Civilianise admin or engineering?
Civilianise logistics with civvy crews for the truckies and (perhaps) tankers?

:uhoh:

Vim_Fuego

15th Jun 2005, 15:34

At least I wasn't hearing things or falling for some jolly wheeze to wind old Vim up...I'd heard 34k and 6 main camps. Would'nt like to be a techie with career aspirations....

Testingtheseatlimit

15th Jun 2005, 15:41

Left for work following Ingram's comments this morning, told to come home happier by the "Boss". I cannot believe the lies that this Government spout on a continuous basis. My work is suffering (like most others) for a lack of funds, lack of personnel and a large weight of PC bull**** in dealing with contractors and the DPA. But, overall, my strongest feelings surround this question: Does Ingram really believe anything he said or has he been mis-informed by our Seniors who seem little interested in ensuring that the public know the truth about our current Forces? I remember hearing once that there was a very effective "shyt filter" system in the military, I believe that this is still the case! Still it will all be OK in the fullness of time .............. won't it?

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 15:44

I am starting to suspect that the relationship between our seniors and the politicians resembles the scenes between Jodl, Keitel and Hitler portrayed in the film "Downfall".

We have chiefs that are either obsequious in their supine behaviour or ignored by deluded politicians who believe they can have their cake and eat it, as well as sharing it with their friend Dubya.

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Jun 2005, 15:46

An article (http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/15/narmy15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/15/ixhome.html) from the Telegraph.

And this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1654671,00.html) from the Times.

Testingtheseatlimit

15th Jun 2005, 15:57

My main objection is that even at my lowly level near the bottom of the food chain, I am having to play politics if I wish to progress. Whatever happened to doing the right thing for the benefit of the man in the field, on the sea or in the air. I wish that we could leave the politics to the politicians and all act like the soldiers we are meant to be. And that includes our Lords/Airships. I realise that this is a niave and idealist opinion in the current climate but, I couldn't tell you what I would give to see a very senior man/lady resign on all of our behalf to make the point that we can not run the Forces like a Corporate Business!
Too many are looking at time and cost and ignoring capability, it is only a matter of time before we see an even bigger disaster than Typhoon.... good luck the Navy!

weeny

15th Jun 2005, 16:16

I'd heard 34k and 6 main camps

I've heard the 34K thing as well. I was just choosing not to believe it. Sounds like it may have some substance. Wonder how many extra duties and deployments they can send me on when we are down to a figure such as that?!!

BEagle

15th Jun 2005, 16:46

No doubt the 34K+6 is the usual maskirovka, so that when the actual number turns out to be 38K+7 there's a huge feeling of relief and the fact that there has been a substantial cut is overlooked.

Still, airlines are beginning to recruit again. For example EasyJet have realised to their cost that they can't afford to dick around waiting for decisions over mil pilots - the guys are being eagerly snapped by others whilst the orange folk are still deliberating!

Biggus

15th Jun 2005, 17:40

vecvec......

You say ...."What you have to remember is that the report stated that the problems affected 2% of the armed forces - which means that 98% are fine and doing dandy thank you very much."...

The report actually said that 38% of forces had "serious weaknesses" in their readiness levels - with 2% described as "critical".

It is nice to hear that overstretch is not a problem in your part of the FAA. Perhaps we should let the First Sea Lord, or whoever runs your outfit, know so he can up your tasking to catch up with the work rate affecting most of the rest of the military. Just because everything is sweetness and light in your portion of the military what arrogance gives you the right to say that there are no problems elsewhere!!

Without talking about the RAF, which you obviously have a chip on your shoulder about, just look for some blatant examples in the Army. As has been mentioned the lack of medical staff has resulted in the need to hire outsiders at up to £600 a day. The number of TA members leaving because they are faced with 6 months away every 3 years, which is the most the government can squeeze out of them!! My point here, because no doubt you will simply have a go at the TA members on the basis that "they signed up for it, tough, etc" is how short the Army obviuosly is to have to need to continually draw on this TA support. What is the turn round time for an infantry battalion between "operational tours" whether it be Iraq, NI etc vs the Army board target.

The NAO believe overstretch exisits, even the MOD mandarins admit it, so what makes you so highly qualified to say that it is a myth. Maybe your next tour should be as an LO with an infantry battalion!!!

By the way, you have gone awfully quiet!

BEagle et al

34k? Yes I can beleive it, but when. Getting down to the current target has taken nearly 3 years by the time it finishes. Is tranche 1 for the next round going to overlap with tranche 3 of the last. As for 6 main camps, again maybe, but before 2013?? Kinloss and Lyneham (both with no long term future) are in business until then I believe. 34k and 6 bases by 2015-2020 maybe, before then???

cazatou

15th Jun 2005, 18:45

Re Vecvechookattack.

On the Chinook Disaster thread he stated with regard to his experience on the Chinook HC2 -(paraphrased)- that he had "about 80 hrs gained on RWTS at BD". The inference being that he had attended ETPS.

On another thread he stated " Following my exchange (with the Royal New Zealand Navy) I was invited to join but declined."

There can't be many (if any) RN pilots who have done both ETPS and an exchange with the RNZN.

pr00ne

15th Jun 2005, 19:37

Now I don’t have any problem with the NAO report, especially the elements that criticise readiness and funding for maintenance and training, but I do have a teeny weeny issue with this overstretch thingy that is obviously genuinely stirring up emotion amongst those on this forum

Using the MOD’s own figures it is apparent that currently 4.6 % of UK regular and reserve forces are deployed , that’s correct, 4.6%!

How can a deployed percentage like that be causing so much grief to so many?

Surely a figure of less than 5% deployed is well below what we would comfortably expect to be able to handle without it causing wailing and gnashing?

cazatou

15th Jun 2005, 19:54

prOOne,

Would you like to Quantify that.

Is the percentage you quote that deployed worldwide or that deployed in Iraq?

Do we not still have Personnel in Afghanistan; in the Carribean on anti drugs patrols, in the South Atlantic, in Northern Ireland. The people involved in these tasks would doubtless prefer to be with their families but accept their duties.

pr00ne

15th Jun 2005, 20:01

Cazatou,

8,350 in the Gulf area including 7,500 in Iraq.
1,100 in Afghanistan.
1,177 in the Falklands
991 in Bosnia
187 in Kosovo
98 in Sierra Leone
40 on AScension Island
329 on UN missions or training/liaison parties.

HOODED

15th Jun 2005, 20:12

Nice one Proone but where in there are those in Ireland?

uknasa

15th Jun 2005, 20:33

Proone

The percentage deployed is irrelevant – the reason the pain is so accute is because, by an large, it’s always the same units/personnel that are deployed

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 20:40

pr00ne, as Napoleon found out in Russia, for every person deployed, you need the logistics chain to support him/her.

Absolutely! I recall reading about Montgomery hosting a Churchill visit to the Eighth Army in 1942. Churchill was ranting and raving about paying 100,000 troops of which the minority were available for action. I don't think Monty bothered to explain and just let the great man rant on.

Those 5% have to come home. If you make it twice a year, that is 10% OOA in one year. 4 month tours and it goes up to 15%. There's training time, leave and the myriad garrison duties that require attention. And that is just for formed unit personnel. I don't have a figure to hand for the % of formed unit personnel but I bet a large sum that it is less than 50%. So the 5% increases to 10% for an annual rotation, 20% for a six-month rotation and to 30% for a 4 month rotation.

The supposed Army between-tour length is 24 months and it was reduced to 6 months for the Black Watch and other units. No Army unit has met the 24-month target.

There was a figure for the % of Army deployed on Telic 1 and I think it was around the 40% mark. I will find out.

Beermonkey

15th Jun 2005, 20:56

Does anyone else think that Admin Guru has remustered to the dark blue?!

Must be a wind up. I cannot believe that vecvec..... is a real person. If so, there's a really nice RAF shrink at Brize Norton who's probably not overstretched......:p

JessTheDog

15th Jun 2005, 20:57

Call me paranoid, but to have 47% of the Army committed as a minority partner in a coalition operation against a low-threat opponent with no simultaneous major committments is bloody scary! :uhoh:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but do the Army not still operate under the "field army" and "home army" concept? I vaguely recall that the field army has 1-2 divisions of perhaps 3 brigades each. A brigade is typically 5,000 troops so the "field army" is perhaps 30,000 strong. This would be just under 30% of the strength of the Army or thereabouts.

SASless

15th Jun 2005, 21:15

How many parades, birthdays, and other ceremonial bashes could be foregone to free up more troops for field service? How many "military" positions could shift to "civilians" to the same effect?

We have the same problem....but also refuse to admit it....the last bunch of 82nd Airborne troops headed for Iraq trained in the Piney woods of Camp McCall in North Carolina....and not at Fort Irwin at the Desert Training Center....reason....the 11th ACR (Training Cadre at Fort Irwin) were deployed to Iraq for field operations. That tell you how bad it has gotten here?

The recruiting short fall is not as bad as the press is making it out to be. The Army is growing....thus the shortfall is actually an increase in raw numbers over last year but still shows as a shortfall. The active duty military are having re-enlistment rates at historical high percentages....the troops are re-inlisting. The Reserves and National Guard are seeing some shortfall and down turn in re-enlistments...but that is no surprise. When Muffy and others found out that there is more to the Reserves (Territorials) than college money and pay and retirement....as so many thought.....they are leaving after their enlistments are up. Units are still able to deploy so it is not a crisis yet.

Biggus

16th Jun 2005, 07:54

prOOne

Just to agree/reinforce Jess the Dog's point. Most of the people I meet in Iraq are on 2, 3, 4 and at most 6 month deployments. Even the Black Watch only did 6 months. Therefore while we might only have 4.6% depoloyed at any one time (which I doubt includes NI as that will no doubt be considered part of the UK), YOU HAVE TO MULTIPLY THAT BY A FACTOR TO FIND THE NUMBER/PERCENTAGE DEPLOYED IN ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD.

As already stated certain units/specializations deploy more frequently than others, for example I would assume artillery and Tank units are deploying less frequently than infantry units. In the same way the UK AEW fleet isn't spending time in sandy places, but it has become a way of life for the SH boys.

As I have already stated, overstretch is not even across the armed forces, but that does not mean it does not exisit.

Statistics need to be relevant to be of any use. I would suggest looking at % deployed at any one stage is an oversimplification.

vecvechookattack

16th Jun 2005, 08:02

cazatou - you are assuming that everyone on RWTS is a pilot....

teeteringhead

16th Jun 2005, 08:24

you are assuming that everyone on RWTS is a pilot.... ... in which case, the phrase "No stick - no vote" for some reason comes to mind.....;) ;)

vecvechookattack

16th Jun 2005, 09:40

Exactly....unless your an engineer with the FBW switch in yr hand.

philrigger

16th Jun 2005, 09:56

Surely Vec Vec is playing the Devil's Advocate?
I can think of no other reason for the tone of his comments.

RIS not RAS

16th Jun 2005, 11:27

PrOOne,

there may only be 4.6% OOA at a time but my trade is only 81% manned at the best of times excluding any OOA tasks. At a briefing this week we were informed by our SO1 trade sponser that difficulties in recruitment and retention mean that by 2008 there will be insufficient personnel to promote and that the situation is now regarded as "Dire"

tonkatechie

16th Jun 2005, 12:01

Have caught up with this thread rather late, having been on some post OOA leave (nice if you can get it!).
I find many of the comments (particulary Mr Vecvec's; I'm unable to decide if you're one of those high up, a journalist, or a junior who feels like 'stirring it up') quite worrying, particularly as I'm hoping to carry on making a career out of this mess...

At least I wasn't hearing things or falling for some jolly wheeze to wind old Vim up...I'd heard 34k and 6 main camps. Would'nt like to be a techie with career aspirations....
Oh dear...time to think about resettlement? Either that, or with the numbers that will PVR in disgust at this 'news' I might end up getting to be the youngest W.O. commanding the other 10 people left in the mob!
Exactly where can we lose that many people from though? We got rid of loads of MT drivers, and now fellow techies are getting sent to Iraq to do driving! Surely this covers up the overstretch to a degree when we send people away to do a task that is secondary to their main role?

I can't remember who said it (read it in a book a long time ago, but it's stuck in my head) but I think it may have been Wellington(?), but here's the paraphrase anyway:
"When a British soldier complains, he's happy. It's when he goes quiet that you have to start worrying"
Take a look in the crewroom next time you're at work - there's a lot of brooding going on...

Maple 01

16th Jun 2005, 12:11

I briefed a bunch of guys going sausage-side this week and was gob-smacked to discover techies being used as MT - mind you the guy I spoke to seemed quite happy - said now he's got his HGV he'll be off soon!

vecvechookattack

16th Jun 2005, 12:19

Same down here in Kernow....we have RAF techies working on RN aircraft because the RAF can't employ them. It would appear that the techies appeared on the scene to early for the typhoon...BUT the point is that the RAF cannot be overstretched if they cannot employ their engineers and have to farm them out to keep them busy.

Mad_Mark

16th Jun 2005, 12:21

prOOne,

Oh how I wish it were 4% in our neck of the woods :(

We undertake 2 month deployments and have, at any one time, 20% of our operational crews in one theatre alone. So, 20% x 6 (i.e. 12 months divided by 2 month deployments) means we have 120% of our operational crews in just one theatre every year - i.e. crews spend 4 months in that one theatre out of every 12 months! Add in the other theatres of ops and other 'away from home' tasks/training and you can see that the figure of 4% is simply laughed at by many.

Stop towing the party line and open your eyes to what is really happening.

As for VecVec, well...

98% of Force Commanders have NO critical weaknesses.

Should that really read...

98% of Force Commanders have NO critical weaknesses that they would admit to in case it makes their leadership qualities look poor.

I have been around for quite some time (not as long as some here, but a s#!t load longer than many) and have watched our Lords and Masters go from being leaders of men to yes men. It seems that far too many people these days are out for themselves and would say whatever it takes to get their promotion and Knighthoods.

MadMark!!! :mad:

Widger

16th Jun 2005, 12:46

VecVec,

You are talking complete and utter B******s. You need to have a word with some of the people who work in Fleet to realise that the RN is skint and overstretched. If things are so rosy then why has the RN withdrawn from Stans for the first time since NATO was born? Because the RN does not have the ship's or personnel. Why are their not enough escorts to meet the RNs commitments. Why are ship's having their Port visits chopped, because there is no money to pay the harbour fees.

Whilst this may not be entirely the HMGs fault, RAB has a big hand to play here. The RNs future is mortgaged on the CVF, JSF and your little bird. In the meantime everything else is sold to the pawnbrokers.

tonkatechie

16th Jun 2005, 12:49

BUT the point is that the RAF cannot be overstretched if they cannot employ their engineers and have to farm them out to keep them busy.
Fair enough, but isn't this a little short sighted / narrow viewed? The techies in this instance have been 'farmed out' because of delays to the Typhoon project (please, let's not get into the politcs of that - it's been covered elsewhere on pprune) and will eventually get to the right place. This is just making good use of manpower, instead of having days spent sweeping an empty hanger. Why are they in Kernow instead of at any other base? Is there a shortage of (quality) engineers there? Also, the establishment of engineering personnel cannot be the be-all and end-all of 'overstretch'. Factors such as aircraft (read tanks / trucks / frigates / carriers as appropriate) availabilty, serviceabilty, and location all go towards the ability of our forces to do the tasks set to them. It's all well and good coping at the current time, but what happens if the government want us to sort out Africa as well as the middle east, just as the Argentines decide to have another go, whilst simultaneously a natural disaster somewhere in the old Empire demands our help? I freely admit that this is far-fetched, but some of it at least is not beyond the realms of possibilty, and therefore needs to be taken care of in our contingency plans. With the current gloom amoungst the longer serving amounst us (of which I am not one) generating lots of PVRs, we are at risk of losing a lot of experience which cannot be regained in future recruitment figures. I for one don't think that the NAO would have presented these findings lightly, and we have to rely on COS and his collegues to make sure that the PM and his 'gang' are fully aware of what this means. How many of us are confident that this will happen (i.e Blair will listen and act)?

The Gorilla

16th Jun 2005, 13:50

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and we have to rely on COS and his collegues to make sure that the PM and his 'gang' are fully aware of what this means. How many of us are confident that this will happen (i.e Blair will listen and act)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is NO WAY that the COS or any of his underlings are going to make TB and GB aware of anything. To do so would be to directly criticise and challenge the defence policies of HMG.

This Government has all the yes it men it needs in strategic positions of power.

:mad:

JessTheDog

16th Jun 2005, 14:05

There is NO WAY that the COS or any of his underlings are going to make TB and GB aware of anything. To do so would be to directly criticise and challenge the defence policies of HMG.

This Government has all the yes it men it needs in strategic positions of power.

Hmm, the actions of our airships and lorships appears remarkably similar to Keitel and Jodl's obseqience to Hitler. We know how the Wehrmacht suffered as the result of unchallenged uninformed meddling.

Alanbrooke kept Churchill firmly in place during a national struggle for survival when strong leadership was a prerequisite for success. So what do our seniors and politicans lack in terms of moral courage and judgement in the relatively untroubled times of today?

It is a sad state of affairs when men and women in uniform rely on the press and the opposition (in that order) to represent their views.

RIS not RAS

16th Jun 2005, 19:25

Just been talking to a mate of mine up at Lossie about this thread. She says that Lossie is established for 22 controllers but 2 posts (9%) are gapped under FMDL. In the next 2 months a further 3 will be OOA at the same time, a total shorage of 22%. The Sqn Adj admits that every leave slot is full but collectively the Sqn will lose 380 days of leave throughout this leave year. If that's not undermanning/overstretch I'm not sure what is!

Weezer

16th Jun 2005, 22:55

VVHA,

There you go again. Do you really expect anyone to take your points seriously when you clearly don't understand even the slightest bit of what you're waffling on about?

Yes the RAF techies are employed with the RN (and they're doing very well too). And yes it's because Typhoon is delayed.

What you've completely failed to explain/acknowledge (probably because you haven't a clue) is that they're almost all directly out of training and not yet experienced enough to be let loose on front line sqns that are currently undermanned, with only just enough supervisors/managers to get the job done safely. There simply isn't enough capacity to take on the extra training burden for all of these chaps on non-Typhoon sqns. You also fail to mention that the RN were more than happy to take on our chaps because of serious manning shortfalls at Cu.

Just because your tiny perspective on the world appears rosy, don't assume that the rest is the same.

C130 Techie

17th Jun 2005, 06:54

vecvechookattack

On your next visit to planet earth I suggest that you discuss your ludicrous "lack of overstretch" theory at somewhere like RAF Lyneham

However you will need your tin hat and body armour.

I think you would be in for a rude awakening!!

cazatou

17th Jun 2005, 19:22

Vecvechookattack,

Regarding your theory that the RAF are so inept that they cannot find employment for their personnel and have to "farm them out" to other Services.

Firstly, would you kindly explain how you managed to absorb them (let alone train them) without severe disruption to your own training programme for Junior Personnel?

Secondly, would you explain the implications of this vast expansion of your First Line Engineering Staff? To have foisted on you this vast amount of barely trained RAF Personnel when you were (apparently)fully up to strength with fully trained RN Personnel must have come as a severe shock. Are we allowed to know what protests you made to Higher Authority regarding this dilution of your Operational Efficiency?

Finally, what are you going to do when they return to the RAF?

ZH875

17th Jun 2005, 22:02

C130 Techie, Lyneham is not undermanned, just overtasked for the manpower it is allowed to have.

vecvechookattack

18th Jun 2005, 00:34

OK. I'll try and answer some of the points made. Firstly, I didn't train them. The engineering training school trained them. They just sat at the back of the class with the rest of the guys.

Secondly. The RAF engineers are not going front line (That really wouldn't be fair would it - they didn't join for that). They just help out on the shop floor conducitng 2nd and 3rd line servicing.

the point reference "What you've completely failed to explain/acknowledge (probably because you haven't a clue) is that they're almost all directly out of training and not yet experienced enough to be let loose on front line sqns ".. well hang on. Are you saying that the routine now is that the Engineers do their basic training and then they join a Navy Base until they have enough experience to rejoin the RAF?
No, thats not the answer. The truth is that the RAF recruited far too many engineers (expecting Typhoon to be on line) and now they can't employ them (cos youv'e got too many). If you are telling me that the RAF are short of engineers they why don't you take them back.

Always_broken_in_wilts

18th Jun 2005, 05:06

There is a distinct "admin guru" whiff about this fella:} Maybe he should be accordingly ignored.

all spelling misatkes are "df" alcohol induced

C130 Techie

18th Jun 2005, 07:37

ZH875

I think it amounts to the same thing doesn't it.

What worries me is what happens when the tasking gets much heavier.

HOODED

18th Jun 2005, 07:44

It won't because it cant! The strectch will become snap and they will discover the critical mass. You can only do so much with so little even with a can do attitude.

cazatou

18th Jun 2005, 07:59

Vecvec

If the RAF did decide to "take back" its engineers; what percentage of your Established Posts would then be filled?

Toxteth O'Grady

18th Jun 2005, 08:58

VVHA

Life here in the FAA is fun, buzzing and the future is very clear and bright.............So, where is this overstretch?

Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half-hour?

Ah-ha, gotchya!

If the FAA isn't overstretched, why the need to employ all these surplus RAF engineers at Culdrose to overcome the acute and chronic paucity of AEMs?

:cool:

TOG

In Tor Wot

18th Jun 2005, 10:16

Having read through the posts there seems to be a number of common threads:

1. Overstretch is not uniform across the military
2. Personnel do not feel the hierarchy are representing their views forcefully enough
3. Some Navy buffoon is successfully winding up those that are being overstretched with idiotic statements.

On the first, my unit of 80 personnel (FMDL 76%) is supporting 15 permanent and 12 ‘temporary’ OOA posts, a gnat’s crochet under a third of manpower. Assuming that our standard roulemont is 3 months (the best balance we’ve found over the past 14 years to minimise the divorce rate) that means that every year the guys can expect 2 dets and a variation between 3-6 months per year away. Whilst this is not in itself onerous, it does knock into a cocked hat any idea of maintaining ‘harmony’ guidelines. Neither does it take into account the experience/knowledge dilution we are experiencing due to PVRs and poor retention. Sometimes military effect is not as simple as playing the numbers and statistics game. The guys are busy, well motivated and enthusiastic but their relative inexperience and our inability to retain them means that our overall effectiveness is diminishing.

SOME of the ‘hierarchy’ most definitely are representing our views but they are diluted by those more senior. This is not a new situation and had the internet been around during the WWII we might have seen some choice comments on some of the military commanders of the day as well. What is different, is the willingness (primarily the lack of) of the politicians/accountants to listen to those views. :(

Finally, vecvechookattack, what can I say? Perhaps when you’ve had the opportunity to go somewhere and do something other than support the delivery of gin to the wardroom, your comments may be more balanced and relevant.

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Jun 2005, 15:28

Don't know if it can be put down to overstretch, but the reductions in the surface fleet announced last July (and taking place now) cannot help....

Pirates off Basra (http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/17/wpir17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/17/ixworld.html)

pr00ne

18th Jun 2005, 15:37

WEBF,

Yep, the reduction from 31 to 25 escorts has given the green light to Pirates all over the world to set upon shipping where ever they can find it.

If only we had those SHAR squadrons eh? Then these pesky pirates wouldn't have stood a chance.........................

C130 Techie

18th Jun 2005, 16:39

Post removed

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Jun 2005, 19:41

Pr00ne

As a result of frigate/destroyer numbers being cut by about 20%, a number of the Navy's standing commitments have been dropped. I believe this includes both NATO Standing Force commitments, both of which were commited to the war against terror. See this from the Telegraph. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/05/nhoon05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/05/ixportal.html)

The argument that numbers are less important if you have hi tech communications seems to be forget that most of the time our forces (sea, land or air) are not engaged in high intensity warfighting for short periods, but lower intensity operations over a much longer timescale, where numbers, not technology, count.

Vevvec

If life in the Andrew is so rosy, then why is their such a retention problem?

I think the following links are apt:

Defence and the media etc (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111156&perpage=15&highlight=media&pagenumber=1)

Article (http://www.spectator.co.uk/trafalgar/article8.html) from the Spectator

Also this (http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2004/0403/0004030401.asp).

JessTheDog

18th Jun 2005, 20:31

Key to this homeland defence was the formation of a new post – Chief-of-Staff Maritime Homeland Defence – held by Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland, Rear Admiral Nick Harris, whose task was to ensure that Britain was alert to the dangers of terrorist threats by sea and could counter them.

Classic response to a crisis - create a 2* job! :mad:

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Jun 2005, 20:38

Actually it was just giving another title to FOSNNI...

JessTheDog

18th Jun 2005, 21:21

Oops!

...but then it can't be much of a job if it goes to a man with a job already...;)

vecvechookattack

19th Jun 2005, 09:47

Apologies truckie fella....I meant Front line in the Navy. That wouldn't be fair.

If life in the Andrew is so rosy, then why is their such a retention problem? Is there a retention problem? Not from where Im standing. In my entire force, we have one guy leaving this year and thats at the end of his comissh.

When we have a retention problem we seem to solve it by throwing money at the guys. well although I would agree the FRI is still being issued, it has been targeted to a minority group and not willy nilly. Yep, pilots and observers are getting the FRI but engineers are not, maintainers are noy, ATC are not (and they always moan about being undermanned) Met men are not, Bomb bosuns, ACRO's,...need I go on?

oh, and one more thing...Life in the Andrew isn't rosy.......its positively crimson...