UK Armed Forces 'Below Strength'

[zedder]

The BBC website has an article summarising the latest NAO report on the Armed Forces. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6111048.stm

Highlights (or is that lowlights!):

Army 1.8% below strength
RAF 4.5% below strength
Navy 3.6% below strength

The bottom lines of the article state:

"It comes as no surprise that in the last two years the number of people leaving has gone up. "The MoD is trying to address this, but it doesn't have a convincing long term strategic approach."

And from what I'm seeing at the coalface, that really is the bottom line at the moment. I've never seen morale quite so bad as it is, or heard so many people talking about when (not if) they plan to get out.

[L1A2 discharged]

Just waiting for the EDP lump sum to equal the outstanding mortgage.

Its only the money nowadays, the management have dispensed with all the 'goodwill' over the past 6 - 8 years.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Bears, woods, Popes and catholic spring to mind. :ugh:

Now just await the flood of PVRs from those who applied for redundancy and didn't get it!!

I think the UK Armed Forces are in a ever decreasing spiral from which there may be no recovery:(

[Pan Pan Splash]

Lads its OK, Tony says this morning that the report is exaggerating, and that the forces are pretty much up to strength.. so no need to worry.:ugh:

[alex_holbrook]

Bears, woods, Popes and catholic spring to mind. :ugh:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[BEagle]

Well, I have to say I told you so.

It started to go pear-shaped in mid-2000 and that's what made me pull the black and yellow.

Good luck to all those staying in - you'll need it.

There was some wretched little Noo Liar pratt on TV today saying that the forces were 'stretched, but not overstretched'.

BOLLEAUX!

[ProfessionalStudent]

Apparently, they're considering relaxing the rules on how fat you can be to join the Forces. God help us!:ugh:

The "fat" end of the wedge?:{

[blodwyn]

They wont be fat for long, the LEAN team will get them !:p

[Bus429]

I'm a civvy through and through so probably not best placed to comment but were there not a load of Government initiated cuts in armed forces numbers a few years ago? Surely the Great Leader considered all this prior to committing people like you to combat (like he considered resources and logistics)?

[Slartibardfarst]

Bus.

An interesting point and well made. And the "cuts" keep coming with the passing of ever week, as more and more of us see the light and find (or should that be "fight for") the exit. Me personally, I have seen enough rot over the last 6/7 years and have adopted the black and yellow approach. I wish all those remaining the best of British, and in the interest of the ecology, could the last one out turn out the lights!!

Here's food for thought though; look at the figures (personnel) over the last few "cuts" and see how many of our MOD Civil Service couterparts were axed.............answer...........not one!!! Rant over!! :ugh:

[number-cruncher]

It's about time we saw the real figures and are stopped being fed utter drivel from the top politicians and senior officers about how we have enough manpower to carry out operations etc. Oh and moral is really high! What's great about spending 6-9 months getting the sh*t blown out you for what is effectively less than the minimum wage.
I'll bet the TA are having less people joining up to be a weekend warrior now that you are almost certain to be called up.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are spending more time away and at more frequent times with not one officer willing to stand up and speak up for the men and women of our services(ok one did). All we have are senior officers (all of whom receive very well paid salaries and spend most of their career teeing up jobs within the industry) and politicians moving around every couple of years to play with a new train set and totally c**k it up by changing far too much all in the name of trying to leave their mark before they embark on another c**k up tour. Not one of them has the guts to speak up because they are all looking after number ones career. If they want to earn real repect, it will come with what they do and not because of the rank they hold. Start doing the job properly and address the issues.:* :ugh:

[Mr Blake]

Well said NC

[Runaway Gun]

Will all those that have 'pulled the handle' please speak up for those that remain? If you no longer have anything to lose...

[nigegilb]

I was interested to see the immigration figures the other day. 1500 people per day coming in to the UK, but 1000 per day leaving these shores. It appears that not only are people leaving the armed forces in increasing numbers but there is a significant increase in people quitting the UK for good.

Food for thought.

[GengisKhant]

I saw the writing on the wall ten years ago and opted for leaving early (after 32+ years). Also, after five years on the civilian side, the writing was becoming evident again, but this time it was taxes and immigration that was rearing its head.

Took the plunge and opted for a more manana attitude..., lucky that I was working from home, so could operate from anywhere, provided that there was broadband and an airport near at hand. Now nearing my fifth year in the sunny med and still working for the same US company that I joined after retirement from RAF.

So it can be done..., its just a matter of looking at your options, finding a place that you like, a house that you can afford, a pool big enough for the Grandchildren, and a bit of luck...., and its amazing how many 'old pals' suddenly appear out of the woodwork when they hear you have moved to sunny climes!!

GengisK :ok:

[Polikarpov]

Apparently, they're considering relaxing the rules on how fat you can be to join the Forces. God help us! The "fat" end of the wedge?

Happened earlier this year if the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6111806.stm) are correct. But it's still not enough.



Most teenagers 'too fat for Army'

Two-thirds of teenagers were too fat to join the Army before rules on weight were relaxed, it has been revealed. The Body Mass Index of all recruits had to be below 28 under the old rules. Earlier this year, this was increased to 32, within the "obese" range.

Officials said the BMI requirement was being relaxed as it had been decided larger men could still be fit.

But now the National Audit Office has revealed that only a third of all 16-year-olds met the old target.

"Increasing levels of obesity and resultant health problems amongst young people reduces the number of young people able to join the services," the NAO said.




Edit: Also on the BBC today there's a Q&A on the shortfall with Colonel Bob Stewart (here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6113320.stm)).

[will fly for food 06]

Will all those that have 'pulled the handle' please speak up for those that remain? If you no longer have anything to lose...
Will do when i out, not yet but soon. I cant wait to leave.

[Wannabe1974]

I do sometimes wonder why we can't retain people in the forces. But then I think of the place where I work - where we aren't meant to have the lights on in the day; where we can't afford to heat accommodation (advice is to wrap up warm and get an extra blanket) and where we are so on the bones of our a*ses that we can't afford to heat the swimming pool. And the place I'm talking about is a training establishment. Is it really any wonder that the bright-eyed youngsters joining up at the moment have little faith that their service will even exist in 20 years time?

[will fly for food 06]

Can I ask how long you have been in and what are your reasons for leaving? Why will you not say anything now if you can't wait to leave?
Sorry id rather not say my reasons and give the press a field day. I will do one day.

[Ken Scott]

Sounds Intriguing. Are you suing the RAF for something that has happened?


Now that sounds like fishing for a story!

Are you the Daily Mail or The Sun?

[Vage Rot]

Apparently, they're considering relaxing the rules on how fat you can be to join the Forces. God help us!:ugh:
The "fat" end of the wedge?:{

They abolished the weight rule for WAAFs years ago I think!!:}

Ooops, not in line with current PC policy!:= :O :D

[will fly for food 06]

Now that sounds like fishing for a story!

Are you the Daily Mail or The Sun?
Sorry was that question to me or the other chap?

[SRENNAPS]

I too got my redundancy. Also got picked up for my crown at the same time. Quick hard think – took redundancy.
Had a great – no fantastic! - 28 years and have done things most people (even RAF people) can only dream of.
No regrets and I would not change the past. But time to move on.
What saddens me, is young people chomping at the bit to get out. When I say young, I mean bright young intelligent people, who in my time, would have “Risen above the rest”.
Something is wrong – very wrong. I have a few ideas, but it is pointless talking about them here.

[GlosMikeP]

Will all those that have 'pulled the handle' please speak up for those that remain? If you no longer have anything to lose...
Many of us do but don't have the influence to make the advice stick. You need to get the likes of Lord Tim Garden on the case - he's posted here before now.

[Wyler]

I'm out in 26 days!

I have had an amazing 25 years, been places and done things that most people could not imagine. Worked with some outstanding people and thoroughly enjoyed the financial and job security. I have always seen the RAF as a way of life, not just a job or even a career.

Why am I leaving? Several reasons. The way we are being run and administered as a civilian entity, highlighted by the rediculous management speak that has infected every corner of our lives. The 'Customer' based ethos we are now immerged in. The fact that some fcukwit in the top office gets wound up about how you present your work without even considering the merits of the actual content.
All that however, is smallfry compared to the pace of change. I am sick and tired of forever being involved in the next good idea, the next trial, the latest reorganisation, the latest document/paper/brief/instruction/SOP that seem to arrive like at an eyewatering pace. More irritating than that is the total lack of consolidation. We try a new idea and then gallop straight on to the next without pause for breath. The majority of it, IMHO, is wasteful, unnecessary and usually the result of someones bid for stardom. OK, not all the time and we do need new ideas and methods BUT not at todays pace. E-mail is a curse, I have been on standdown for 2 days and come in this morning to 80 e-mails. 20 contained large documents that are supposed to be read and/or actioned. It goes on and on to the extent that you don't know where the hell you are or who is doing what.
I know I will be slated for this but, in the eyes of the public, how can we claim overstretch when we can put 9 Red Arrows in the Sunderland Air Show but only 7 Harriers in Afghanistan. It just does not add up. OK, the Red Arrows are great PR, really? Who wants to join a service that puts more effort into showboating than supporting its people at the sharp end? That's how Joe Public will see it.
It seems to me that ever since the carbunckle known as Investors in People, we have stopped doing just that. JPA is crap (more later). The Armed Forces are unique, not just another branch of Woolworths and, as such, we need to be looked after in a unique way. That means being able to go face to face with service support personnel who understand the issues, have similar experiences and can (mostly) deal with your problems, allowing you time to concentrate on your primary task. Not logging on to some web site and then talking to a call centre operator whose only claim to fame is a Grade F in Media Studies.
The standard of medical care has gone through the floor. When I joined there were at least four Military Hospitals. Today, with war raging in the Middle East, not one. Our troops are stuck in any old ward where they can be rebuked by any passing 'brother of Islam', it is a disgrace.
Beauracracy. It is strangling the very lifeblood out of the service. The amount of hassle just to get a frigging rail ticket is rediculous. You can do well at your job and nothing is said. Pay your Mess Bill a day late and the gates of hell seem to open. Don't put your car pass in exactly the right place and everyone wants to know your name. CCS, waste of time. RAFT. Did mine in Jan and passed. Got a snottogram in May saying I was out of date and in line for a one way interview. The reason? New financial year so had to be done again. So, nothing to do with fitness, just another tick in the right box at the right time.
Troops out of area. Lots has been said on this forum by people far better qualified than me but, sufficed to say, long time away from home, minimal support. Why are we not putting as much effort into replacing the AT fleet as we are into bringing the Typhoon into service? The former actually goes further than the UK FIR Boundary.

Finally, back to JPA. I leave in 26 days after 22 years in the Regular RAF and 3 years as a Full Time Reservist. You would think that all that I had to think about was emptying my draw and organising the final beers. No chance. I am owed over £1000.00 through JPA. I moved out of my FQ into a private house some months ago. I am still paying FQ rent, garage rent and service Poll Tax. That is on top of my commercial rent and local Poll Tax. After 4 phone calls, countless e-mails and 2 letters I am no further forward. I have been told that the chances of it being resolved in time for my exit are next to none. Not good enough. I would like to leave with a smile, a handshake and my head held high. If I have to do it by overturning some tables and removing the odd door from its hinges then so be it. I have kept my end of the bargain, the powers that be can f:mad: ing well keep theirs.

To those still left, good luck and I will miss you. To those that are joining or thinking of joining, I wish you well. To you the RAF is as it is and you will adapt. Good luck.

I am told that PPRUNE is required reading by those on Staff Courses. Hope you enjoyed it Gents. Now back to working out how Customer 1 can shaft Customer 2 and still look good, whilst sidestepping all blame.

[insty66]

Wyler.

That seems to sum it up rather well:D

Excellent post and good luck for the future:ok:

[Vage Rot]

Wyler well said old chap
:D :D :D :D

[stillin1]

Wyler,
Frankly, I agree with every sentiment. One still lives in hope that evntually someone with the right level of clout will n b just how f##ked-up things have got, but I'm not holding my breath!
:ugh:

[enginesuck]

You just said everything that ive been thinking, but put much better than i could ever have done...... :ok:

[Toddington Ted]

Well put Wyler. FWIW in my opinion there's nothing wrong with a media studies qualification (which I don't have btw!) but it needs to be an "A" rather than an "F" to be of any real value to anyone - but yes, I know what you mean!

[BEagle]

"I would like to leave with a smile, a handshake and my head held high."

You'll be lucky. After 35 years I received neither smile nor handshake.

Face it. With a few exceptions, those above you only follow 'Per ardua ad astra' if it's through your hardship to their stars. Stand your ground, even if you're 100% correct, and you'll simply be $hat upon...

The air smells much cleaner on the outside.

[Ginger Beer]

Well said that man:D

I agree with your every word friend. I have just been working with some spams and they get a 50% pension after just 20 years instead of our 35 yrs or so:=

They also have the topical tax free monthly pay, every time they cross a lat n long in a geographical region which has troubles, and "we" are just in the process of being fobbed off by teflon Tone with the £2000 annual bonus which, IMHO, most of us will miraculously not qualify for.

Sold out to the lowest bidder:ugh:

Wyler, good luck matey, leave the door ajar as I'm right behind you:)

Regards, Ginge

[Two's in]

Don't overlook the changing face of society and culture as a major factor in what is happening here. In the 60's, 70's and 80's the threat was communism and Russia. Everything was geared towards combating that threat, and generally, the great unwashed agreed that it was a real threat. Life in the services had a purpose and a focus, the odd war popped up from time to time for some diversity in training and role execution, but we all knew what we there for, and being the military instruments of the Government of the day posed few problems for the majority. Everybody still griped about terms and conditions, it's the nature of the military beast after all, but you could always balance it against the greater good and goals of the larger political objective.

What has changed, is that the disenfranchising of the Services through such means as civilianization of supporting services, local budgetary controls that undermine terms and conditions, and general petty minded bureaucracy, has been matched with the moral bankruptcy of the Government in its military endeavours. So while the military benefits and life style are being eroded on a daily basis, the raison d'etre for serving Queen and country has been hijacked by a bunch of political spivs who are in it purely for themselves. This is being reflected in the attitude of those leaving today, who would clearly be able to tolerate the poor conditions and low morale if only it was to serve some higher calling or purpose (we all sign that piece of paper, after all). Instead they see 20 years plus of service to the country being gambled and squandered by a bunch of second rate chancers and gamblers. Grounds indeed for heading for the life boats, while there are still some left.

Good luck and thanks to all of you.

[ShyTorque]

I left 12 years ago, similar reasons to Wyler. "New Management Strategy" (= No More Sunshine) did it for me.

Most of the problems we now see come from a government regime that rattled on about the so-called "peace dividend", using that phrase as an excuse to run things on the cheap but subsequently sent our forces to war three times......

A government that is proud of our services only when some political gain can be made from it. :*

[cynicalint]

Eloquently put Wyler,

The practice of treating us as a business is now coming to fruition; to continue the business jargon -
We are an insurance policy and the holder has not been paying his premiums and now he is trying to cash in finds he cannot.

The only business I know that takes a watch OFF you when you leave!

Best of luck in the future, wherever that takes you

[nigegilb]

Wyler your post seems to have pushed a few emotional buttons, maybe others who are quitting should post their reasons in public. There is nothing quite like the truth, it cannot be spun against and makes the decision makers extremely nervous. Witness the wild eyed reaction to General Dannatt's comments.

Best of luck to you, I don't think you will regret it, just as I doubt you will regret any of your time served.

[SRENNAPS]

Wyler
Well said. I could add a lot more and will do in time. Lets hope the top, but more importantly, the w@nkers in the midlde, listen to what you say.

[GlosMikeP]

I thought I saw it all coming which is why I left 13 years ago. This, other threads and all the news I get from mates still in have served only to convinced me I made the right choice. I've never looked back.

As BEagle said, the air is sweeter outside.

[Compressorstall]

Karl von Clauswitz said:

“War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.”

We are just political tools nowadays, much more than we ever were. Someone once said that "it is good that war is so terrible, lest we like it too much", unfortunately no-one told the Government, perhaps we have made war a bit to easy to play nowadays...

[1771 DELETE]

I only to glad to say that i was one of the lucky ones on tranche one, I am fairly sure that i would have walked anyway but the 18 months pay made it so much sweeter :)

[Roadster280]

Firstly, Wyler - Well done for having the balls to call a spade a spade.:D :D :D

Secondly, SRENNAPS - If by "your crown", you mean promotion from Sgt to Flt Sgt, after 28 years, then I share your disdain. You must have had 3 reasonable pay hikes, roughly one every decade, though I suspect you must have been a Sgt for more than 10 years. That's just crazy. How can the service hope to retain someone, offering such dismal career progression? I understand it is much the same for Flt Lts, too.

Thirdly, nigegilb - You hit the nail on the head for me. I'm one of the 1000 a day, and I haven't looked back. No sickening attacks on poppy sellers here.

The military I joined was in the Cold War. OK, I am a dinosaur. But the military is what kept the Playstation generation from being part of a glass car park. No ragheads gobbing off in Parliament Square in my day. No London Boroughs banning the flying of the Union Flag on the basis it might "upset the community". No homosexuals permitted in the military. Trains got maintained. Military hospitals used spare capacity to help the local community. Not the other way around.

As an Army radio tech, I was surprised one day to see a price sticker on a coax connector, 10 pounds. Next month, the next batch turned up. Same NSN, same manufacturer, price was now 50 pounds. FOR THE SAME PART! Now, I didn't change these things because I liked the job, frankly it was a pain in the arse. If, however, the coax cable needed a new end, I changed it. It was most certainly not a financial decision, rather one of need. As the guy doing the job, I don't give two hoots whether the connector costs 500 pounds. Some of them did! DEFENCE HAS A COST!!! Define the requirement, then pay the bill. Not the other way around.

To all those leaving, I say good luck to you. To those still in, even more luck. Keep my Mum safe please. You are all that will, the Government won't.

[SRENNAPS]

Roadster280
For your info: 3 years to Cpl, 6 years to Sgt, 9 years to Chf Tech and it would have been 10 years to Flt Sgt. Not the best record in promotion but I was proud of it.

[jayteeto]

I often get these random thoughts in my third year of retirement..... In the bad old days, the labour party was known to be anti-forces with politicians being CND members etc etc. If they had tried to cut the military by direct means, there would have been an outcry. This is a great way to do it by stealth......

Just hypothetical of course, the labour party would never do anything by stealth....................................

[GlosMikeP]

Umm, that would be so if predicated on their knowing what they're doing at all, which suggests a level of competence. They haven't shown any of that! No it's just old fashioned bad governance - mismanagement of everything they survey.

[FormerFlake]

I was interested to see the immigration figures the other day. 1500 people per day coming in to the UK, but 1000 per day leaving these shores. It appears that not only are people leaving the armed forces in increasing numbers but there is a significant increase in people quitting the UK for good.

Food for thought.

Well I left the RAF and Blighty, your correct. I didn't leave the RAF by choice, it was 'natural wastage' though.

Something the figures don't show, which is maybe unique to the RAF is how important 1 or 2 people can be as there are more and more specialist posts that are empty. Certain branches/trade are understaffed and constantly in and out of Iraq/Afg too. Plenty of SOs happily sat at PMA etc though.

One, of many, crazy situations is with the state of the Stn Regiment Flights. At large stations like Brize Norton (for example) you may have 3 or 4 Rocks to train 4, 000 odd people. It's crazy and despite their best efforts people are then going on guard, or to Iraq etc undertrained. These shortfalls also mean the average person in the RAF gets about 6 hours a year training for weapons, NBC, First Aid etc Even if you add IDT total training can be less than 20 hours a year. We then send people in to dangerous places having maybe fired less than 100 live rounds in their life. Why are we in this situation? The lack of training staff prevents any additional hours of training. People then have to re-do CCS before they do guard or go out OOA if they have less than 6 months currency left (which almost doubles the workload). Plus all the flights/sections can not spare their staff for longer as they are so understaffed.

If you look at the maths you would need 1 instructor teaching CCS 5 days a week, for 50 weeks (I doubt they are lucky enough to get 2 weeks leave a year though) are year with 20 people per class to get through 5000 people. That assumes you can teach CCS on your own, but you can't and leaves no time for IDT, IRT, SGF courses.

Must be at least another 100 examples of critical overstrech like this.

[pr00ne]

jayteetoo,

“…the Labour party was known to be anti-forces……”

Urban myth I am afraid old chap! The Tory party has been just as bad for the forces as Labour, in fact the only party who we could say with any certainty have NOT been “bad” for the forces in recent decades are the Liberals as they haven’t actually been in power to enable them to do any harm! Labour had their 1974 and 1968 cuts, the Tories had their 1957, 1973 and 1981 cuts and both parties have been equally as guilty in reducing defence expenditure since the end of the Cold war, though as least it has been rising over the past few budgets, though manifestly by not enough.

As for there being an outcry if “they” had tried to cut the military by direct means, total tosh! All parties in power in the last Century have consistently cut back the military, sometimes at the height of super power tensions, and barely a murmur of protest outside those directly involved was heard

I think that GlosMikeP has it spot on, there is no conspiracy to reduce the forces or attack them, there is just rank incompetence in managing very large sums of money. We see it in Education, the NHS, ANY Government IT system you care to name and defence and the forces are no different.

I doubt if any particular party would have done things significantly differently over the last decade or so, there is precious little to choose between them after all.

Blair going SHOULD make a difference as his particular style seems to be at the root of much of the discord we see at present, Gordon Brown has gone out of his way to support the security and military needs of the country in several high profile speeches in recent years, he could well make a difference, I doubt that Cameron would.

[BEagle]

"Gordon Brown has gone out of his way to support the security and military needs of the country in several high profile speeches in recent years"

Really? So why the hell hasn't he put his money where his mouth is? Or is it just more Noo Liar spin?

Surely there will be a call for an election to boot Noo Liar out before any possibility of Grumpy Gordon becoming PM. With lefty Hain as his sidekick....heaven help us all.

[Chugalug2]

I doubt if any particular party would have done things significantly differently over the last decade or so, there is precious little to choose between them after all.

Surely the difference in the state of the Armed Forces now, compared with those under previous administrations, is that they are no longer self sustaining. I agree that cuts have been TOTPs for both parties, after all that was what gave the green light to Argentina's Junta! But no matter how the Forces shrank they were still, more or less, able to function as self governing entities. Reading the above threads shows that this is no longer the case. When basic provision of pay, housing and medical care are taken outside the Chain of Command and placed in the hands of people who frankly don't care, or if they do can't do anyway, leads to a dysfunctional administrative morass. That is what this Government has uniquely reduced our Armed Forces to, while at the same time tasking them beyond their capacity (hence CGS's concern). Bliar will be remembered for all this, if Bush has been the worst US President, surely Bliar has been our worst PM?
To those leaving, don't feel bad, we know you did your best, and good luck to you. To those remaining, take heart. Eventually this country will get the leadership it deserves, an MOD that cares about the Defence of the Nation, and reformation of its Armed Forces so that local commanders can once again command!

[PingDit]

23 August 07 - MoD Manning figures (taken from RAF News Aug 31st).
As of 1 July 07;
RAF 94.3% manned against a target of 45,020
Navy 94.7% manned against a target of 36,720
Army 97.6% manned against a target of 101,800

Armed forces minister Bob Ainsworth said "These official statistics show recruitment into the Royal Navy and RAF remains strong in the demanding conditions of a buoyant economy. Voluntary outflow rates also continue to be stable. We know that there are shortages in the pinch point areas but we are taking action where we can to reduce the pressure".

Amazing! Who's feeding him the 'buoyant economy' drivel - what? In the Forces? And we all know where the 'pinch points' are, don't we? Aircrew!
What it fails to spell out is that we're currently short of 6955 people (that is of course, if you agree with the Government's targeted manning figures in the first place!)
:}

[TheSmiter]

How about giving the new Armed Forces Minister a chance to bed down? He's still learning.

Unlike his boss:

Every defence pound is a wasted pound

Gordon Brown Chancellor 1990's

And yes, Jacko, I stand by my source..... a quote which is about as Googleable as:

This Govt doesn't care whether it breaks the Armed Forces

Obviously, I can't guarantee the veracity of the above quotes - however, I, and other Pruners daily see the evidence of the success of this policy. Maybe I'm missing the big picture. :ooh:

[PingDit]

Smiter,

Yes, I'm willing to give HIM a chance, but not this hopeless Government who, when receiving criticism in a specific area start to 'people shuffle' in order to distract attention and announce that the 'new broom' will sort the problem out. We're undermanned for a reason. The Government needs to address this specific problem NOW.
Last one out, turn out the lights - bugger it, just leave 'em on.
:(

[Jackonicko]

Smiter,

You might 'stand by the quotes' but if you can't attribute them, then they are useless. And if you google "Every Defence Pound is a wasted pound" you get nothing but PPRuNe posts by you quoting it, or me asking where it's from!

You can't simply make up a phrase and then claim that someone said it because it sounds 'about right'.

And Proone is absolutely right - in peacetime all parties will spend as little on defence as they can get away with, and the Tory record on spending and cuts is actually worse than Labour's - largely because they were in power when the greatest damage could be done.

They've always claimed to be strong on defence, but Options for Change, Frontline First, and indeed every Tory review going back to the Sandys White Paper and beyond shows the truth. And I say that as a disillusioned Tory voter (because I've had local Tory MPs who I could stomach, even when I couldn't stomach the party as a whole, I've voted Tory every time since '79 - though not in local government elections).

And we don't have to have seen the Liberals in power to know that they'd have been even worse. Their late defence spokesman (good chap, I know) cravenly toed his party's deranged line on Typhoon, on spending, etc rather than pushing his party towards rather greater sense.

[Wader2]

Jacko, with rare exceptions I agree.

The Maggie pay rise was one but of course greater damage was done with the Nott Cuts and then the Peace Dividend.

Dennis Healey, OTOH, held down the job of Defence Secretary for one administration and Chancellor in the next. I admit to admiring his work but I could not summarise Defence under labour during his terms, I am sure you can.

What I can say however is that the withdrawal from East of Suez was a Tory policy that Harold Wilson was not in favour of. His prefered option was withdrawal from Europe. (David Easter - Confrontation 1963-1966)

[Red Line Entry]

PingDit,

You quote that:
As of 1 July 07;
RAF 94.3% manned against a target of 45,020

This means we had 42453 people. However, this isn't quite the end of the story. The Medium Term Work Strands (MTWS) have the aim of reducing the RAF down to 41700 (ish - I'm doing this from memory) by 1 Apr 08. Thus the current establishment itself is due to fall significantly over the next few months. This means that we still need to get rid of another 750-odd Service personnel over the next 7 months and on 1 Apr next year we will be 100% manned. Senior officer utopia!

I'm not justifying this approach - just giving my understanding of the plan!

[nigegilb]

Ah yes, and part of the utopia involved Top Brass selling the justification for redundancy at a time of war on the grounds of freeing up engineers from working in Deep, enabling them to boost manning on the Sqns. They failed to explain why the subsequent redundancies involved hundreds of engineers. Also RAF personnel would become multi-skilled, sadly the high paid Brass haven't explained how someone can be in Iraq and Afg at the same time.

The cuts were just that, cuts to fit a given budget.

Talk about moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

"...136. We consider the arrangements for the future support of military aircraft below (see paragraphs 163–181). However, one of the principal justifications for the decision to concentrate support—deep repair, scheduled maintenance and modification of aircraft—forward to main operating bases was the need to retain sufficient uniformed personnel to sustain the level of concurrent operations as set out in Future Capabilities. It is therefore,on the face of it, surprising that the bulk of the 2,750 redundancies from the RAF are to be aircraft engineers.

137. The proposal to provide 170 front line crews to man up to 64 offensive fast jets in an air expeditionary task group, representing an aircrew to aircraft manning ratio of approximately 2.5 to 1, reflects current practice. The numbers do not, however, represent the overall requirement for offensive fast jet aircrew. There is always a further number of aircrew on squadrons who are not yet combat ready, others who are filling operational and other training posts and others whose experience is essential to fill associated staff posts. We are concerned that the significant reductions in RAF manning in the short term ignore a predictable increased requirement in the medium to longer term, with the effect that a short term gain may undermine longer term resilience....."