MOD Ambushed

[Melchett01]

MPs, including many Conservatives, voted to halt the “disbandment” of the regular Army until a plan to hire thousands of new reservists over the next four years is proven to be “viable and cost-effective”.

Tory MPs rebel against plan to sack soldiers and replace them with TA - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10386497/Tory-MPs-rebel-against-plan-to-sack-soldiers-and-replace-them-with-TA.html)

So is this just an operational pause in the defence cuts or has Hammond been outflanked in his bid to outsource defence of the UK? Not that it's likely to result in the regeneration of lost operational capabilties, but you can't help feel that following swiftly on from the announcement of a couple of billion not yet spent and the earlier rush to war in Syria a few weeks back that Cameron's and Hammond's judgement are starting to come under the spotlight.

[Flugplatz]

Sounds like an outbreak of common sense. Let me share my recent experience.

I recently made enquiries about joining the reserves even though an old git. I'd been in the stabs in the late eighties and then the regs for 10 years. My previous service gives me some breaks in terms of the age limits but I would realistically only be able to look at units within 50 miles (and that's pushing it).

I checked out my local unit, only about a mile away: they are RAMC and so apparently have no jobs that don't require me to be already clinical qualified, mainly a registered Nurse or junior Doctor. I think they do have a couple of admin jobs but only a tiny amount and I got the impression that these guys were only there to set up tents and stag-on. Not to worry the representative said, "what do you do in civvy street, have you got any job quals?" "Yes, helicopter pilot" I replied. Another glum look; turns out (not surprisingly) "I think you could only do that if you have been trained by the Army".

So the result at initial contact: Job A: "I'm afraid you can't do that; we don't provide any military training in that role, only professional civilian qualifications are accepted". Job B: "I'm afraid you can't do that, we don't recognise professional civilian qualifications in that role, only military training and qualifications are accepted".

OK, I can see their point and those two roles are at the top end of skill and training for the armed forces so probably not hugely representative. Following on from that I had another consultation to look at other roles that are open, do not require mil. or civ. professional or trade qualifications and are within 50 miles.

The result was what I would recognise as necessary but 'dross' jobs that would only inspire a very few. Admin roles, 'warm body' jobs related to logistics and support, the PBI and any job where the army would be forced to train you (Artillery etc) because thats the only way it can be done. Of all the 'one Army' jobs on the website (that is supposedly) shared by the reserves and the regs. probably only 10-20% of the roles can be done by reservists. Even jobs like IT and vehicle engineering are apparently only for those "in the industry" or with civ.quals.

As I see it, this is still the same old Army-on-the-cheap money saving scheme that I can remember being trotted out during the 90s. Unlike the US system where they will provide pretty much the same full-time training to their volunteers and then put them on the reserve to keep costs down; the UK wants to hold all the aces and let their reserves do all the heavy lifting. I can't see this recruitment drive working; it is all too one-sided. The jobs on offer are only those where they can get away with the minimum (fieldcraft, weapons training, NBC, first aid etc) and nothing that can't be provided with a couple of weeks of training. Of course there are always young guys who are only interested in those sorts of things, but I have to question where that attitude will really be able to fulfil the much proportionately much larger requirement for the reserves to take up the skills slack after the cuts to the regular Army?

I am not at all surprised that the recruitment drive is failing; it is just such a bad, one-sided deal. :*

[Ali Barber]

I wouldn't call it an ambush. The cuts in the Army are based on a false premise that the "slack" (if there is such a thing) would be taken up by the Reserves, who won't be there because not enough people are joining. This "ambush" highlights the issue but, by my reading of it, does not compel the Government to do anything. It applies a moral pressure but we all know that is entirely worthless where any Government (Left, Right or Middle) is concerned,

[Roadster280]

Flugplatz, I don't see it changing any time soon.

As you say, the government's ideal is a reserve soldier who is cheap to train and cheap to employ. The more demanding roles can be met with regulars.

As an example, I was in the TA many moons ago, in a Signals unit. The kit was basic, and easy-ish to train. I then joined up Regular. My old TA unit was then issued with Ptarmigan. That required a considerably greater depth of training. The answer was to restrict the STABs to a particular piece of equipment, and have them learn that one, rather than all of it. Then post in a number of Regulars to hold the fort.

I expect the number of hybrid units to grow in the future. Perhaps they will be like my old one, a TA unit in name; but with a chunk of regular manning.

Then again, my first regular unit had a TA troop too. That may be the way forward.

Recruiting will be the key. If they can make it attractive enough, people will join. If they can't, they won't. Simple as that.

[VinRouge]

can someone please tell me the necessity to have a 120,000 strong UK Army? With warfare as it is, you could cut that number in half surely?

with a current deployment strength of 8000 in south afghan, tri-service, are you telling me there are actually people out there who have never deployed on Op HERRICK?

[Melchett01]

Ali,

I had this very discussion this afternoon with a colleague before I even knew about the goings on in the HoC. Pretty much everybody from OF-5 down understands the implications of the policy across all 3 Services. I describe it as an 'MOD ambush' because only the MOD and the very highest levels of the Services appear to have been surprised by this.

Vin,

There are indeed people that haven't deployed on HERRICK. Some of them didn't deploy on TELIC either. Some of these individuals are just unlucky; they are in roles that have a long turn around time (the Manning website has the details of these - some jobs have an OOA turn around measured in excess of a decade!) or they are medically unable to deploy to operational zones and so are stuck trying to get a one of a small number of jobs in places like AUD where the med requirements are lower.

But I have no doubt that there are equally a few who are just LMF and do all they can to avoid deploying.

[gr4techie]

Wrong. People are willing to go OOA but cant. As these people are posted on a squadron who's contribution is done within the UK. For example... Air defence, SAR, OCU's, AFCO's, training schools, headquarters admin / staff jobs, etc etc.
I know people who volunteered for ANY OOA post but got rejected because the manpower was needed in the UK.

[Melchett01]

gr4techie,

I think we are in violent agreement if you note what I said in terms of being unlucky because of the nature of their role. But equally I stand by my view that there are individuals who do all they can not to deploy and will often cite various personal reasons e.g. children, they've got a 'career course' and even they've booked a holidy was one set of excuses I saw on a slide on a Manning presentation - I kid you not.

[NutLoose]

The way I look at it is the Government wants to do it on the cheap and are gambling heavily on ex servicemen taking up the slack..

Sack them IE make them redundant, then hope you can get them back as reservists, thus saving the cost of paying them full time pay and benefits.

Bloody big con if you ask me.

[gr4techie]

Melchett01,

My apologies, I read your post wrong.

[Roadster280]

"can someone please tell me the necessity to have a 120,000 strong UK Army? With warfare as it is, you could cut that number in half surely? "

I can't justify the actual numbers, because I don't know the planning assumptions.

However, I can say this:

You can't summarily chop the Army 50% on the basis that it is a more modern war than previously. In Air and Naval circles, to some extent, a more capable weapon, aircraft or ship can decrease the need for larger numbers of the predecessor. As a simplistic example, had TLAM been in service in 1980 with the RN, Black Buck would not have been necessary. A C-17 has nearly 4x the payload of a C-130. A400M 50% more than C-130. Voyager range is 50% more than VC10. Yadda yadda. I do agree that the resultant slashing is too deep, but nevertheless, if 5 aircraft can now do the work of 10 previously, you do the math, as they say.

In the Army, you need boots on the ground to occupy it. MBTs are done for in terms of development. They won't get any better. At least not in the UK. Advances in vehicles are mainly to do with survivability than lethality of weapons. But where that has been the case (eg MLRS), the number of Arty regts has declined.

The Army's orbat is quite different to the RAF or Navy too. A brigade may have three regiments. Say one Armd, one Recce and one Inf. That's about 1500 guys. It will also have a Sig sqn, an Arty Bty, an Avn Regt/Sqn, an Engr Sqn, An RLC Regt (maybe two), a REME Wksp etc. There'll be over 5000 guys in the brigade group. Typically they are upgunned for deployment and will have even more guys. Eg additional EW assets, multiple Arty types, additional engr support etc.

Then there's the Army's non-deployable formations, such as the training regiments, regional HQs, depots, London public duties liabilities etc etc. All from a regular core of 80K troops. 40K reservists is pie in the sky.

[high spirits]

If you equip and train troops poorly then don't be surprised if your budget gets nibbled by the ambulance chasers....self licking lollipop.

Armed Forces 'Undermined By Human Rights' (http://news.sky.com/story/1156142/armed-forces-undermined-by-human-rights)

[Melchett01]

In Air and Naval circles, to some extent, a more capable weapon, aircraft or ship can decrease the need for larger numbers of the predecessor

Only up to a point, a lot will also depend on your planning assumptions and your appetite for getting involved in various places around the world. The increased capability argument is one that has been constantly trotted out for the RAF and RN, but it has steadily moved away from being a description of enhanced capability - a positive move - towards a justification for a slash and burn policy conducted in isolation from reality and with only the bottom line on a balance sheet for strategic guidance.

Plus, increased quality brings its own problems. You are probably going to feel slightly more easy about losing the odd aircraft if they only cost £5M and you have a couple of hundred than if they cost £100M and you only have 20 of them. In the case if the former, losing one or 2 is likely to be manageable from overall capability terms, but in the latter, losing one or 2 is likely to put a sizeable hole in your force structure, planning considerations and desire to actually use said platforms for what you originally bought them for.

In addition to this, I have never ever seen a MBT, a ship or an aircraft, regardless of its advanced capabilties, be in 2 places at once. And when you have a government that is keen on acting as a world player, that is a bit of a problem when you are simultaneously slashing your force levels.

[Wensleydale]

In addition to this, I have never ever seen a MBT, a ship or an aircraft, regardless of its advanced capabilties, be in 2 places at once.


A fact proved in WW2! The superiority of German armour was countered by far larger numbers of T-34s and Sherman M4s - I always cringed at the cold war argument that superiority in Western armour would counter the numbers of Soviet tanks in the Central Region. The superiority argument only holds when you have the initiative and choose where you are going to fight (eg Kuwait in GW2). If the other side decides to attack on a wide front then lack of numbers will always find you out (back to the ww2 lessons).

[Roland Pulfrew]

can someone please tell me the necessity to have a 120,000 strong UK Army? With warfare as it is, you could cut that number in half surely?



Vin

Not sure what year your figures are from but Army manning has not been at 120K for many, many years, I think the establishment is circa 102K (so maybe it was a typo) and they are circa 6K short of that target. The current government plan to reduce that number to 82K. The peak in AFG was 9.5K of which the majority were green jobs, so about 8K. With predeployment, deployment, and recovery you need circa 24K straight away. Then you need to add on your standing commitments (Germany, UK readiness units, NI, Falklands, Cyprus etc + a similar number to replace those units that are rotational). Standby units need a unit in training to replace them "on stag" so that doubles that number. Then you have units required for tasks like UN missions and their replacements, plus all those Defence jobs that are not core warfighting such as training units, procurement, Defence diplomacy, NATO jobs, loan service posts etc etc. I think you will find the numbers start to add up very quickly.

As for a 30K strong Army Reserve to backfill the 20K cut that the army faces, well the TA have never delivered on their "trained strength" when they were only 19K strong and the regular army already relies heavily on TA soldiers (those that are trained, fit and able to deploy) already at 96K so the future doesn't look good.

This is just another government trying to do Defence on the cheap - a lot like contractorisation, civilianisation of key but not necessarily warfighting posts - have any of them really delivered a better capability more cost effectively?

[NutLoose]

In Air and Naval circles, to some extent, a more capable weapon, aircraft or ship can decrease the need for larger numbers of the predecessor. A C-17 has nearly 4x the payload of a C-130. A400M 50% more than C-130. Voyager range is 50% more than VC10.

True, but then reduced numbers also brings up the problem of attrition, it's all well and good reducing the fleet size because of increased capability in that a C-17 can carry four times that of a Herc, but go tech or lose one and that's four C-130 loads lost, lose a single C-130 and you can still shift three quarters of your assets... You would also struggle to get a C-17 into some of the strips the Herc uses and you wouldn't want to use a C-17 to shift what could essentially be carried by a single Herc.

[Roadster280]

Melchett and NutLoose - I absolutely agree.

My point was that whatever savings can be achieved from increased equipment capability (and of course there are shortcomings to that policy) - the idea isn't transferable to the Army quite so readily.

The Army needs blokes on the ground more than anything else. The RN & RAF need to field weapons & transport platforms. A different proposition. That's all.

[NutLoose]

Yup, no point in having the technology to win a war in the air if you do not have the manpower on the ground to hold it, you get the same effect you appear to have in Afghanistan, little fortifications commanding and holding little alcoves of territory whilst the Taliban have free reign to move over the rest of the country, because you do not have the manpower on the ground to make an effective presence and to lock them down...