MoD slammed on troop over-stretch
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overstretch at the coal face hurts
Overstretch at Flt Cdr level exists but is not acknowleged as it is not carrear healthy
So at Sqn Boss and above life is rosy
30 years in and nothing changes
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Overstretch at Flt Cdr level exists but is not acknowleged as it is not carrear healthy
So at Sqn Boss and above life is rosy
30 years in and nothing changes
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 2nd Jul 2004 at 13:48.
Buff was quoted on the BBC 10'o clock news - usual line that he didn't accept that the armed forces were overstretched or undermanned , but 'we have asked a lot of the logisticians and enablers'.
So that's alright then.
So that's alright then.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's just hope that Prudence, Buffoon and Bliar haven't been looking at the continent for hints and tips on what to do. The Austrian government has just endorsed the recommendation of an all-party defence reform commission to cut the size of the armed forces by 50%. Bu**ger!!!! And, if as Buffoon states, we aren't over stretched, why has my desk just told me that he is looking at sending me back to the sandpit for the 3rd time in under 18 months??!!
I can see that the threat has changed since the good old days of the Cold War and that we no longer need Wings of bombers and fighters, divisions of armour etcetc to face the Soviet threat. However everything that has happened in recent years re defence cuts, or should I say strategic re-alignment, has happened because those in charge and that make the decisions have no concept of what we do and what we need or the real level of threat that we face.
During the Cold War, we had how many divs, sqns, ships, all targetted against a known and quantifiable threat? Now we don't know specifically what the threat is, we canbnot specifically quantify it, it is very nebulus and keeps cropping up simultaneously in various parts of the world./
Now I am all for work smarter not harder, and as such yes, if gadgets and technology can make the difference, then lets crack on. But given the nebulous and geographically simultaneous threats, there is one thing that even a computer hasn't worked out how to do yet - make resources cut to the bone and spread extremely thinly appear in more than one place at the same time.
It's all well and good having technological superiority, but it hasn't really helped in recent years has it? For all their AD/SPACOM facilities (eg Cheyenn Mountain), the US couldn't stop 9-11. and what use would having a Bn of computer wizards be in Iraq at the moment when we need the presence of people on the ground.
If there are any senior officers reading this, please please please, from someone at the coalface dealing with ops everyday, think very carefully before reducing numbers to pay for fancy gadgets that will not do anything to enhance our capability in the sort of ops we are currently involved in. Hoon is an idiot - little more than a barrack room lawyer interested only in his career by pleasing Trust-me Tone. He has no idea of what we do, what we need to do our job and the implications - possibly measured in body bags, of decimating our armed forces. The civil servants too are a bunch of career minded jobs-worths. They will do what they are told and nothing else, regardless of the impact it has on the country. And unfortunately I am increasingly beginning to think that their Airships are not much better as we rarely see any attempt to stick up for the armed forces.
We are in the profession of war. We are not a business. Our profit and loss margins are based in terms of the numbers of body bags rocking up at Brize when we go on one of Tone's crusades. Remember that next time you try and measure what we do on a balance sheet.
I can see that the threat has changed since the good old days of the Cold War and that we no longer need Wings of bombers and fighters, divisions of armour etcetc to face the Soviet threat. However everything that has happened in recent years re defence cuts, or should I say strategic re-alignment, has happened because those in charge and that make the decisions have no concept of what we do and what we need or the real level of threat that we face.
During the Cold War, we had how many divs, sqns, ships, all targetted against a known and quantifiable threat? Now we don't know specifically what the threat is, we canbnot specifically quantify it, it is very nebulus and keeps cropping up simultaneously in various parts of the world./
Now I am all for work smarter not harder, and as such yes, if gadgets and technology can make the difference, then lets crack on. But given the nebulous and geographically simultaneous threats, there is one thing that even a computer hasn't worked out how to do yet - make resources cut to the bone and spread extremely thinly appear in more than one place at the same time.
It's all well and good having technological superiority, but it hasn't really helped in recent years has it? For all their AD/SPACOM facilities (eg Cheyenn Mountain), the US couldn't stop 9-11. and what use would having a Bn of computer wizards be in Iraq at the moment when we need the presence of people on the ground.
If there are any senior officers reading this, please please please, from someone at the coalface dealing with ops everyday, think very carefully before reducing numbers to pay for fancy gadgets that will not do anything to enhance our capability in the sort of ops we are currently involved in. Hoon is an idiot - little more than a barrack room lawyer interested only in his career by pleasing Trust-me Tone. He has no idea of what we do, what we need to do our job and the implications - possibly measured in body bags, of decimating our armed forces. The civil servants too are a bunch of career minded jobs-worths. They will do what they are told and nothing else, regardless of the impact it has on the country. And unfortunately I am increasingly beginning to think that their Airships are not much better as we rarely see any attempt to stick up for the armed forces.
We are in the profession of war. We are not a business. Our profit and loss margins are based in terms of the numbers of body bags rocking up at Brize when we go on one of Tone's crusades. Remember that next time you try and measure what we do on a balance sheet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Suggestion...
Perhaps the Govt should announce a 25% cutback in Benefits spending on the basis that 200 Billion gets spent a year, yet the same work-shy dredge leaves the system annually no different to when they entered it... that would leave 50 Billion extra to fund health, education and have some on the side to support our extremely hard working Armed Forces, who, with only a tenth of the benefits spending figure, provide the highest quality labour force in the country. May be unpopular with some inner city areas, but it certainly might get some of us apathetic types to get up and vote.
Besides, why should we allow those types voting rights that blatantly have no intention of supporting this country or any one else other than themselves?
Queue response from the left wing....
Perhaps the Govt should announce a 25% cutback in Benefits spending on the basis that 200 Billion gets spent a year, yet the same work-shy dredge leaves the system annually no different to when they entered it... that would leave 50 Billion extra to fund health, education and have some on the side to support our extremely hard working Armed Forces, who, with only a tenth of the benefits spending figure, provide the highest quality labour force in the country. May be unpopular with some inner city areas, but it certainly might get some of us apathetic types to get up and vote.
Besides, why should we allow those types voting rights that blatantly have no intention of supporting this country or any one else other than themselves?
Queue response from the left wing....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mbga9pgf,
Before I start where did u get that name
As to your post. I am considered on here by many as a leftie/luvvie. I personally do not label myself but there you go.
However, I agree with you to some degree. My idea is one that has been mooted many times before and that is the re-introduction of National Service. However, rather than make for all at a certain age instead make it for those unable to get and keep a job, both male and female, between 18 and 55.
I would suggest that it be set out in this manner.
1) If you have been unemployed for more than 12 months, then you go.
2) If you have had a job in the last 12 months but it lasted less than 6 months and you are now unemployed, then you go.
3) You serve for 5 years
4) After 5 years you are offered 2 choices: stay in or take one of 3 jobs offered to you. These jobs are guaranteed to last for at least 2 years financially speaking, however if you are fired or leave you go straight back to the forces and start from scratch.
This is only the bare bones of an idea so I would be interested what everyone else has to say about it.
Cheers
BHR
Before I start where did u get that name
As to your post. I am considered on here by many as a leftie/luvvie. I personally do not label myself but there you go.
However, I agree with you to some degree. My idea is one that has been mooted many times before and that is the re-introduction of National Service. However, rather than make for all at a certain age instead make it for those unable to get and keep a job, both male and female, between 18 and 55.
I would suggest that it be set out in this manner.
1) If you have been unemployed for more than 12 months, then you go.
2) If you have had a job in the last 12 months but it lasted less than 6 months and you are now unemployed, then you go.
3) You serve for 5 years
4) After 5 years you are offered 2 choices: stay in or take one of 3 jobs offered to you. These jobs are guaranteed to last for at least 2 years financially speaking, however if you are fired or leave you go straight back to the forces and start from scratch.
This is only the bare bones of an idea so I would be interested what everyone else has to say about it.
Cheers
BHR
BHR, love the plan, only one problem. The people that you'd get!
Now I'm sorry that this is a generalization and that many unemployed people are not in that situation voluntarily and would react well to the challenge of life in the armed forces; however, there are many that are just wasters and would not react well. You might call them socially inept. They are unemployed because they are unemployable. Do we really want these people in our armed forces?
Now I'm sorry that this is a generalization and that many unemployed people are not in that situation voluntarily and would react well to the challenge of life in the armed forces; however, there are many that are just wasters and would not react well. You might call them socially inept. They are unemployed because they are unemployable. Do we really want these people in our armed forces?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
I understand what you are saying but when the alternative is to support them all their life I think it is worth it. I have a high regard and respect for those in the training sections of the various UK armed forces. They can turn boys into men. This challenge is not above their abilities.
As I have said the alternative is far worse. Lifetime support for them and more increasingly their offspring. There are families in this country that are on the 3rd and 4th generation of benefits. Do we just give up on these people? No, that is too easy and too expensive.
I know of at least two of the people I went to school with that are now grandparents. I am only 32. Their parents were on benefits, they are on benefits, their kids are on benefits and what chance for these newborns?
As for conscription into the armed forces, it was good enough in two World Wars.
I look forward to hearing more from you.
Cheers
BHR
I understand what you are saying but when the alternative is to support them all their life I think it is worth it. I have a high regard and respect for those in the training sections of the various UK armed forces. They can turn boys into men. This challenge is not above their abilities.
As I have said the alternative is far worse. Lifetime support for them and more increasingly their offspring. There are families in this country that are on the 3rd and 4th generation of benefits. Do we just give up on these people? No, that is too easy and too expensive.
I know of at least two of the people I went to school with that are now grandparents. I am only 32. Their parents were on benefits, they are on benefits, their kids are on benefits and what chance for these newborns?
As for conscription into the armed forces, it was good enough in two World Wars.
I look forward to hearing more from you.
Cheers
BHR
VP959,
I don't think your going to be very far out in what you expect, but it is still not going to be a CUT in Defence expenditure!
The Gorilla,
The leaked cabinet spending review showed a 1% increase in defence expenditure. How do you work that out as a cut?
mbga9pgf,
"work shy dredge?"
Wow, someone who makes Navaleye look like a Guardian reading Liberal democrat!
I don't think your going to be very far out in what you expect, but it is still not going to be a CUT in Defence expenditure!
The Gorilla,
The leaked cabinet spending review showed a 1% increase in defence expenditure. How do you work that out as a cut?
mbga9pgf,
"work shy dredge?"
Wow, someone who makes Navaleye look like a Guardian reading Liberal democrat!
pr00ne,
Regardless of the figure on the bottom line, if the spending review results in having to disband units, withdraw aircraft, ships, or other equipment without replacement, or if manpower is further reduced, or if the MoD is forced to cancel requirements, only some slimy, dishonest New Labour spin-monkey would argue that the effect was anything other than a package of cuts. Calling it a 'realignment' does not make it any such thing, any more than I'd be entitled to a rum ration if I called myself Admiral Lord Nelson.
mbga9pgf and BHR,
While there are undeniably 'workshy' scroungers among the unemployed, there are equally very many people who are the innocent victims of .... let's call it circumstance. The appalling failures in education and training, coupled with the decline of traditional industries and the lack of sensible employment creation policies in the areas affected have left many people without any prospect of work, through no fault of their own. I'm trying not to get political and blame Thatcher, here..... In any event, to discriminate against the 'deserving unemployed' would not be something which most true Brits would condone - we have a social conscience, a sense of fair play, and a rudimentary grasp of right and wrong, after all.
Pushing the unemployed into the Armed Forces is equally barking. The fact that conscripts were used in the Great War is entirely irrelevant. Most artillery was still horse-drawn and most ships employed gangs of stokers and had very young midshipmen, etc. In today's high tech forces, all-volunteer is the best way to go. There might be an argument to make benefits conditional on doing 'socially useful' work for the community, but one would have to be careful not to 'undercut' or replace real jobs, and we should surely recognise that the unemployed have a right to their dignity.
Regardless of the figure on the bottom line, if the spending review results in having to disband units, withdraw aircraft, ships, or other equipment without replacement, or if manpower is further reduced, or if the MoD is forced to cancel requirements, only some slimy, dishonest New Labour spin-monkey would argue that the effect was anything other than a package of cuts. Calling it a 'realignment' does not make it any such thing, any more than I'd be entitled to a rum ration if I called myself Admiral Lord Nelson.
mbga9pgf and BHR,
While there are undeniably 'workshy' scroungers among the unemployed, there are equally very many people who are the innocent victims of .... let's call it circumstance. The appalling failures in education and training, coupled with the decline of traditional industries and the lack of sensible employment creation policies in the areas affected have left many people without any prospect of work, through no fault of their own. I'm trying not to get political and blame Thatcher, here..... In any event, to discriminate against the 'deserving unemployed' would not be something which most true Brits would condone - we have a social conscience, a sense of fair play, and a rudimentary grasp of right and wrong, after all.
Pushing the unemployed into the Armed Forces is equally barking. The fact that conscripts were used in the Great War is entirely irrelevant. Most artillery was still horse-drawn and most ships employed gangs of stokers and had very young midshipmen, etc. In today's high tech forces, all-volunteer is the best way to go. There might be an argument to make benefits conditional on doing 'socially useful' work for the community, but one would have to be careful not to 'undercut' or replace real jobs, and we should surely recognise that the unemployed have a right to their dignity.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always_broken_in_wilts
Not me ...........in to 55 followed by pension and retirement
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id118.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2Fnsquad29.xml
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
This is probably pushing me in a direction I do not want to go but here goes.
I hardly feel that getting a days work out of someone and paying them for it, along with providing room, board and training, can be seen as discrimination.
As for what most true Brits would feel about continuing to support those unwilling to support themselves, I think they would be closer to my opinion than yours, but that is just my opinion and I have no data to support it.
Please note that I continue to refer to those unwilling. I am very aware that there will always be those who are unable to be gainfully employed due to medical conditions. However, the percentage of people claiming “on the social” that are medically incapable of working at any job is IIRC in the single figure bracket. The armed forces have thousands of non-combat roles being filled by combat trained and capable personnel. Tie this up with the millions of unemployed and there has to be some sort of solution to several problems there.
If I give you a 50-50 split of able to work to unable to work, at current numbers that still amounts to approx 500,000 bodies acting as a drain on society for no good reason.
As you say there are many innocent victims of economic pressures. These people only want to work and feel useful again. This can help them get back on their feet. Give them back some self-esteem and put them back on track.
A thought that just came to me is that during the time served by those in this scheme, every effort and opportunity should be given to them to acquire recognised qualifications that will help them back in civilian life.
As I said I am aware that this idea is not perfect but I feel it is worth pursuing further in this forum.
Thanks for your input
Cheers
BHR
This is probably pushing me in a direction I do not want to go but here goes.
I hardly feel that getting a days work out of someone and paying them for it, along with providing room, board and training, can be seen as discrimination.
As for what most true Brits would feel about continuing to support those unwilling to support themselves, I think they would be closer to my opinion than yours, but that is just my opinion and I have no data to support it.
Please note that I continue to refer to those unwilling. I am very aware that there will always be those who are unable to be gainfully employed due to medical conditions. However, the percentage of people claiming “on the social” that are medically incapable of working at any job is IIRC in the single figure bracket. The armed forces have thousands of non-combat roles being filled by combat trained and capable personnel. Tie this up with the millions of unemployed and there has to be some sort of solution to several problems there.
If I give you a 50-50 split of able to work to unable to work, at current numbers that still amounts to approx 500,000 bodies acting as a drain on society for no good reason.
As you say there are many innocent victims of economic pressures. These people only want to work and feel useful again. This can help them get back on their feet. Give them back some self-esteem and put them back on track.
A thought that just came to me is that during the time served by those in this scheme, every effort and opportunity should be given to them to acquire recognised qualifications that will help them back in civilian life.
As I said I am aware that this idea is not perfect but I feel it is worth pursuing further in this forum.
Thanks for your input
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a "real" 1% increase or...
a. A drop in the ocean when the cost of Telic is considered?
b. One that has been announced before?
c. Counterbalanced by the savings in the supposedly "cost neutral" new pension scheme?
I now have no loyalty towards anybody senior than my Gp Captain and I feel actively disloyal towards anyone above 2*, particularly politicians and civil servants. Our loyalty is not reciprocated and I am hoping I can keep my typing fingers under control until I am safely in civilian life!
a. A drop in the ocean when the cost of Telic is considered?
b. One that has been announced before?
c. Counterbalanced by the savings in the supposedly "cost neutral" new pension scheme?
I now have no loyalty towards anybody senior than my Gp Captain and I feel actively disloyal towards anyone above 2*, particularly politicians and civil servants. Our loyalty is not reciprocated and I am hoping I can keep my typing fingers under control until I am safely in civilian life!
Jacko, totally agree. With the kind of technology used nowadays we wouldn't be able to use people the way that BHR is suggesting! BHR, the problem with what you suggest about freeing-up trained troops for front-line service is that all those people are being used for front-line service already and getting rotated in and out of posts in the UK. When they're out of the country their post is gapped. You'd have to create new posts for the unemployed to go to and that would mean a huge increase in the size of HMF, not politically acceptable. Jacko, back to you. 'Socially useful' work, apart from the H&S angle, which I'm sure many would try and pull, it's a great idea. Stuff the idea of demeaning people. If they are on benefits and unemployed then they should, if they can, work for it. Litter picking, graffiti cleaning the list is endless. When they re-nationalize the rail industry they could all work on the trains! 
