UK Armed Forces 'Below Strength'
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Firstly, Wyler - Well done for having the balls to call a spade a spade.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by SRENNAPS; 5th Nov 2006 at 04:12. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
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....................................
Just hypothetical of course, the labour party would never do anything by stealth....................................
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Food for thought.
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.
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.
“…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.
"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.
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.
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!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
MoD Manning figures - August 2007
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....."
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....."
Last edited by nigegilb; 3rd Sep 2007 at 12:44.
