Please define "breaking point"
Thread Starter
Please define "breaking point"
As the whole situation re the UK forces at breaking point thing seems to be gathering pace in the media could someone define this term?
My understanding is that although kit is certainly past it's sell by date this time it's the people that are getting overstretched as well, too the point where recruitment isn't matching exit rates?
So will it be a transient period where things are very bad before "our Tony" and co realise this or will it actually all come to a grinding halt?
The reason i'm asking is I once told someone "you never see the RAF advertising for flying posts" meaning people were queing up to try and join, and they could take the pick of the litter.
As ever all jobs have bad things but when I see the now RAF specifically advertising flying posts on their website - something must be afoot.
Cheers.
My understanding is that although kit is certainly past it's sell by date this time it's the people that are getting overstretched as well, too the point where recruitment isn't matching exit rates?
So will it be a transient period where things are very bad before "our Tony" and co realise this or will it actually all come to a grinding halt?
The reason i'm asking is I once told someone "you never see the RAF advertising for flying posts" meaning people were queing up to try and join, and they could take the pick of the litter.
As ever all jobs have bad things but when I see the now RAF specifically advertising flying posts on their website - something must be afoot.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaft,
I don't think there is going to be a visible snap of the very stretched rubber band that keeps us going and in some areas there's still very little pressure on it; in the RAF, despite what you read here, some do still enjoy the halcyon days of normality where they can take their full leave entitlement, where weekends are sacred, station duties are rare and they and haven't done an out-of-area for many, many years!
But these people are a shrinking minority. Notwithstanding OOA dets and their frequency, those left at home are working additional shifts, longer hours or simply absorbing several people's jobs at once due to their colleagues being OOA, or perhaps ahead in the queue to leave because they've had enough. As you may know, no allowance is made for people being away on detachment or resettlement – those who remain behind just have to do more. Then, after months of working extra, it’s time to start preparing for your next OOA det where you’re told to expect ‘surge operations’ – what a fantastic retainer! This used to be a temporary state of affairs but today the requisite level of manpower - already whittled down to the minimum by manpower reviews - is routinely less than what is regarded as necessary by the RAF itself! So although people may be working to ‘surge’ on overseas, increasingly there is little respite when back from a OOA det. Unfortunately most departments are in the same boat so complaints are unheard of as they'll do little except damage an individual's career. So in what I think is a direct result - and I say this with due thought - the majority of people I know are at least giving serious consideration to leaving the Service at their next suitable point.
That leads me to finally answering your question. Many people on this site have referred to an exodus of people, fed up with life in the Services. But I also wonder if some are looking for a crowd of people (led by Moses?), to suddenly go to admin on a Wednesday morning and applying to leave, because this won't happen. Firstly, those people who haven't been in long enough to be attracted to the pension – often those of lower rank and therefore more frequent OOAs and crappier jobs – will leave as and when dates suit them, while those waiting for the pension each have individual qualifying dates to reach. Even promotion as a retention measure has been undermined by Pay 2000, whereby what may have been a reasonable pay rise from one rank to another, now involves only a couple of pounds a day extra, and disproportionate extra work; yet another example of poor investment in people and long-term thinking.
I believe an exodus of sorts is already happening, but it's currently buried in 'seasonally adjusted' figures or perhaps mis-attributed to redundancy rejectees applying for PVR. One of the resounding failures of the Service since I joined has been our inability to communicate properly with people, so I don’t think we officially know what our peoples’ intentions are. That must be a cause for concern somewhere! (Incidentally, I did see something recently that said [in essence] that JPA hasn't been able to produce manning figures since it was switched on - if you weren't aware, JPA is a multi-million pound computer system that was forced upon the military too early, to meet a government in-service date. It's effectively torpedoed the RAF admin world and recovery is going to take years.)
Add to that the lull in recruiting. The forces were unfashionable even before the politicos sent us to two unpopular wars. Constant media stories of old/poor/unsubstantial equipment, low pay particularly at lower echelons, criticisms by the Service's own generals on a weekly basis and, yesterday, emotive images of squalid conditions at home have only added to people deciding to choose a less uncertain career. And why should they when the Welfare State seems to pay about the same as a junior rank? I still believe young people can learn a lot from joining the forces and I wouldn't actively discourage my kids per se, provided they treated it as a short-term job and kept their career options/aspirations open.
So people are tired at home and overseas. The operational tempo is continuing at ‘surge’, yet we don't have the required number of people even at home. More worryingly, there is no apparent enthusiasm for reform, particularly while the faceless MoD Spokesman continues to glibly contradict the comments of those doing the shooting! In sandy places our temporary set-ups are becoming permanent fixtures, yet aren't being invested in because, by definition, they were only ever intended to be temporary. Some of our aircraft are older than the crews who fly them, while even the newer models suffer regularly from spares shortages. Again, there is no sign of an improvement and no believable statements from the politicians who now resent paying for the wars they themselves underestimated. The forces truly are paying for politicians mistakes. Sound bites such as Tony’s promise of more helicopters just don’t make sense – off-the-shelf helicopters can’t simply fly into battle, especially when there aren’t enough people to fly them!
I am increasingly of the belief that the only catalyst for a proper defence review – consisting of a cross-party panel without a money saving agenda – will be a dramatic, perhaps catastrophic event; something that will leave the British public with their mouths open. I have some ideas what that might be - other threads allude to the type of thing I mean. I think that will be the closest we will get to a tangible breaking point.
I only hope it brings 'fixing point', where years of underinvestment in the obedient, can-do British Forces result in the realisation that we're ordinarily far more resourceful than other sectors. So when our bosses do say things are bad, they're bloody bad!
I don't think there is going to be a visible snap of the very stretched rubber band that keeps us going and in some areas there's still very little pressure on it; in the RAF, despite what you read here, some do still enjoy the halcyon days of normality where they can take their full leave entitlement, where weekends are sacred, station duties are rare and they and haven't done an out-of-area for many, many years!
But these people are a shrinking minority. Notwithstanding OOA dets and their frequency, those left at home are working additional shifts, longer hours or simply absorbing several people's jobs at once due to their colleagues being OOA, or perhaps ahead in the queue to leave because they've had enough. As you may know, no allowance is made for people being away on detachment or resettlement – those who remain behind just have to do more. Then, after months of working extra, it’s time to start preparing for your next OOA det where you’re told to expect ‘surge operations’ – what a fantastic retainer! This used to be a temporary state of affairs but today the requisite level of manpower - already whittled down to the minimum by manpower reviews - is routinely less than what is regarded as necessary by the RAF itself! So although people may be working to ‘surge’ on overseas, increasingly there is little respite when back from a OOA det. Unfortunately most departments are in the same boat so complaints are unheard of as they'll do little except damage an individual's career. So in what I think is a direct result - and I say this with due thought - the majority of people I know are at least giving serious consideration to leaving the Service at their next suitable point.
That leads me to finally answering your question. Many people on this site have referred to an exodus of people, fed up with life in the Services. But I also wonder if some are looking for a crowd of people (led by Moses?), to suddenly go to admin on a Wednesday morning and applying to leave, because this won't happen. Firstly, those people who haven't been in long enough to be attracted to the pension – often those of lower rank and therefore more frequent OOAs and crappier jobs – will leave as and when dates suit them, while those waiting for the pension each have individual qualifying dates to reach. Even promotion as a retention measure has been undermined by Pay 2000, whereby what may have been a reasonable pay rise from one rank to another, now involves only a couple of pounds a day extra, and disproportionate extra work; yet another example of poor investment in people and long-term thinking.
I believe an exodus of sorts is already happening, but it's currently buried in 'seasonally adjusted' figures or perhaps mis-attributed to redundancy rejectees applying for PVR. One of the resounding failures of the Service since I joined has been our inability to communicate properly with people, so I don’t think we officially know what our peoples’ intentions are. That must be a cause for concern somewhere! (Incidentally, I did see something recently that said [in essence] that JPA hasn't been able to produce manning figures since it was switched on - if you weren't aware, JPA is a multi-million pound computer system that was forced upon the military too early, to meet a government in-service date. It's effectively torpedoed the RAF admin world and recovery is going to take years.)
Add to that the lull in recruiting. The forces were unfashionable even before the politicos sent us to two unpopular wars. Constant media stories of old/poor/unsubstantial equipment, low pay particularly at lower echelons, criticisms by the Service's own generals on a weekly basis and, yesterday, emotive images of squalid conditions at home have only added to people deciding to choose a less uncertain career. And why should they when the Welfare State seems to pay about the same as a junior rank? I still believe young people can learn a lot from joining the forces and I wouldn't actively discourage my kids per se, provided they treated it as a short-term job and kept their career options/aspirations open.
So people are tired at home and overseas. The operational tempo is continuing at ‘surge’, yet we don't have the required number of people even at home. More worryingly, there is no apparent enthusiasm for reform, particularly while the faceless MoD Spokesman continues to glibly contradict the comments of those doing the shooting! In sandy places our temporary set-ups are becoming permanent fixtures, yet aren't being invested in because, by definition, they were only ever intended to be temporary. Some of our aircraft are older than the crews who fly them, while even the newer models suffer regularly from spares shortages. Again, there is no sign of an improvement and no believable statements from the politicians who now resent paying for the wars they themselves underestimated. The forces truly are paying for politicians mistakes. Sound bites such as Tony’s promise of more helicopters just don’t make sense – off-the-shelf helicopters can’t simply fly into battle, especially when there aren’t enough people to fly them!
I am increasingly of the belief that the only catalyst for a proper defence review – consisting of a cross-party panel without a money saving agenda – will be a dramatic, perhaps catastrophic event; something that will leave the British public with their mouths open. I have some ideas what that might be - other threads allude to the type of thing I mean. I think that will be the closest we will get to a tangible breaking point.
I only hope it brings 'fixing point', where years of underinvestment in the obedient, can-do British Forces result in the realisation that we're ordinarily far more resourceful than other sectors. So when our bosses do say things are bad, they're bloody bad!
Last edited by dallas; 5th Jan 2007 at 11:44.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been running with a manning deficit for two years; this will continue. At the same time we provide manning for OOA. To continue operating we then borrow manpower from another unit.
It will soon come to pass that in UK Dets match OOA Dets if frequency if not in duration so that everyone one gets shafted twice as often.
My 2RO jumped last month. One day he was there, next week he was gone; jumped to a county council job, better pay, better hours, less . . .
It will soon come to pass that in UK Dets match OOA Dets if frequency if not in duration so that everyone one gets shafted twice as often.
My 2RO jumped last month. One day he was there, next week he was gone; jumped to a county council job, better pay, better hours, less . . .
Thread Starter
First off, should have seen that one coming!
Dallas, thanks for the in depth explanation. I meant to add that I hope it doesn't come at the expense of lives but given some of the things i've read recently it probably will, or has.
I mean the Falklands thing where the Navy uniform was changed from cotton (protected well from flash flames but expensive) to Nylon based (melted onto skin) purely as a cost cutter.
I recently read Col Tim Collins book about Iraq, he mentions the same points as you at the end so it really is the Armed forces as a whole then?
Why are the lessons of history not learned?
Dallas, thanks for the in depth explanation. I meant to add that I hope it doesn't come at the expense of lives but given some of the things i've read recently it probably will, or has.
I mean the Falklands thing where the Navy uniform was changed from cotton (protected well from flash flames but expensive) to Nylon based (melted onto skin) purely as a cost cutter.
I recently read Col Tim Collins book about Iraq, he mentions the same points as you at the end so it really is the Armed forces as a whole then?
Why are the lessons of history not learned?
