Armed Forces face mass walk out over poor funding, report warns
Thread Starter
Armed Forces face mass walk out over poor funding, report warns
An interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph:
The Armed Forces face a mass walk out with under-funding leading to a "major crisis" in defence, an influential report backed by former military chiefs warns.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
They will soon be "paralysed" by the growing number of resignations and will take a decade to recover, the UK National Defence Association paper says.
A “huge burden” has been placed on the Forces with more than 12,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan that has led to an immense strain on both troops and equipment.
All three major political parties must now unite to back the "woefully under-funded" Forces whose budget urgently needs to be increased from the current £34 billion to £50 billion over the next three years, it states.
"The national interest requires the full-hearted engagement of Government and Opposition to rehabilitate our Armed Forces and repair our defences. Now is no longer the time for party politics," said Winston Churchill, the UKNDA's president and grandson of the wartime leader.
He warned that the Forces were "in crisis" with funding the lowest since the Thirties when "inadequate defence provision paved the way directly to world war".
The report highlights as a serious worry the continued drain of personnel which saw 20,000 troops resign last year fed up with poor pay, time away from families and inadequate accommodation.
"Remedial action can no longer be delayed without running the unacceptable risk of mass retirements from the widely demoralised Armed Forces," said the report, Overcoming The Defence Crisis, that was compiled by former generals, admirals and academics.
"There are no cheap victories in defence, but failure would be even more expensive. Never have all three Services had so little with which to do so much"
There has been a serious decline in morale resulting in more than 50 per cent of the military having considered resigning, according to the MoD's own survey.
To reverse the "unacceptable threat of major resignations" and restore morale the Services need a rapid improvement in pay, kit and manpower.
"The serious inadequacy of Britain's current and planned defence provision is undeniable," the 20 page report said.
Defence funding has hit the lowest level since the 1930s with no increase expected despite worsening world events
The Services have become "so run down" in terms of troop numbers and equipment that "urgent rehabilitation" is required.
With no major defence review since 1998 – before the Forces had fought five wars – the paper called for urgent review and for the Government to commit to higher spending before it concluded.
The paper argued that with equipment and personnel so worn out it would take three years to restore to previous levels even with the right funding.
The authors called on the Tories to exercise their bi-partisan duty "to ensure the country is properly defended" by encouraging the spending increase.
David Cameron's position of refusing any spending commitments was "completely inappropriate" as inadequate defence funding put "everything else at risk".
There was a "huge mismatch" between what the "seriously under-resourced" Army was being asked to do and what it could do properly. In order to meet requirements the Army needed to expand by 10,000 troops.
The RAF was "so run down" in numbers and capability that it was unable to meet commitments "by a wide margin". Apart from Eurofighter Typhoons it was fielding an ageing and expensive fleet. The RAF needed to increase numbers from 41,000 to 55,000 to "meet the growing known threats and the unpredictable" otherwise Britain would not retain air superiority on operations for the first time since the 1941 invasion of Crete.
On present trends the Navy's once formidable Fleet will be "grievously weakened" heading towards half its current size by 2020 with no air cover for the next nine years after the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier.
With fewer warships there was insufficient training and as a result "standards are dropping".
The MoD said the Defence budget had experienced its longest period of sustained real growth for over 30 years.
“Additional Treasury funding allows us to deliver urgent and cutting-edge equipment to operations,” a spokesman said.
Personally, I feel the MoD spokesman has the naivety of 'Comical Ali' - and the words of Mandy Rice-Davies come to mind........
The Armed Forces face a mass walk out with under-funding leading to a "major crisis" in defence, an influential report backed by former military chiefs warns.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
They will soon be "paralysed" by the growing number of resignations and will take a decade to recover, the UK National Defence Association paper says.
A “huge burden” has been placed on the Forces with more than 12,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan that has led to an immense strain on both troops and equipment.
All three major political parties must now unite to back the "woefully under-funded" Forces whose budget urgently needs to be increased from the current £34 billion to £50 billion over the next three years, it states.
"The national interest requires the full-hearted engagement of Government and Opposition to rehabilitate our Armed Forces and repair our defences. Now is no longer the time for party politics," said Winston Churchill, the UKNDA's president and grandson of the wartime leader.
He warned that the Forces were "in crisis" with funding the lowest since the Thirties when "inadequate defence provision paved the way directly to world war".
The report highlights as a serious worry the continued drain of personnel which saw 20,000 troops resign last year fed up with poor pay, time away from families and inadequate accommodation.
"Remedial action can no longer be delayed without running the unacceptable risk of mass retirements from the widely demoralised Armed Forces," said the report, Overcoming The Defence Crisis, that was compiled by former generals, admirals and academics.
"There are no cheap victories in defence, but failure would be even more expensive. Never have all three Services had so little with which to do so much"
There has been a serious decline in morale resulting in more than 50 per cent of the military having considered resigning, according to the MoD's own survey.
To reverse the "unacceptable threat of major resignations" and restore morale the Services need a rapid improvement in pay, kit and manpower.
"The serious inadequacy of Britain's current and planned defence provision is undeniable," the 20 page report said.
Defence funding has hit the lowest level since the 1930s with no increase expected despite worsening world events
The Services have become "so run down" in terms of troop numbers and equipment that "urgent rehabilitation" is required.
With no major defence review since 1998 – before the Forces had fought five wars – the paper called for urgent review and for the Government to commit to higher spending before it concluded.
The paper argued that with equipment and personnel so worn out it would take three years to restore to previous levels even with the right funding.
The authors called on the Tories to exercise their bi-partisan duty "to ensure the country is properly defended" by encouraging the spending increase.
David Cameron's position of refusing any spending commitments was "completely inappropriate" as inadequate defence funding put "everything else at risk".
There was a "huge mismatch" between what the "seriously under-resourced" Army was being asked to do and what it could do properly. In order to meet requirements the Army needed to expand by 10,000 troops.
The RAF was "so run down" in numbers and capability that it was unable to meet commitments "by a wide margin". Apart from Eurofighter Typhoons it was fielding an ageing and expensive fleet. The RAF needed to increase numbers from 41,000 to 55,000 to "meet the growing known threats and the unpredictable" otherwise Britain would not retain air superiority on operations for the first time since the 1941 invasion of Crete.
On present trends the Navy's once formidable Fleet will be "grievously weakened" heading towards half its current size by 2020 with no air cover for the next nine years after the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier.
With fewer warships there was insufficient training and as a result "standards are dropping".
The MoD said the Defence budget had experienced its longest period of sustained real growth for over 30 years.
“Additional Treasury funding allows us to deliver urgent and cutting-edge equipment to operations,” a spokesman said.
Personally, I feel the MoD spokesman has the naivety of 'Comical Ali' - and the words of Mandy Rice-Davies come to mind........
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Sep 2008 at 06:16.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Never have all three Services had so little with which to do so much"
"Never have so few had so little to do so much"
Now doesn't that sound like a famous quote from a previous Winston Churchill! I don't think we'd be sat here in this dreadful state if he were still around.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BEagle, well done. Normally I would say 'precis and post the link' but in this case I think it deserves a place of its own.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the post BEagle as I hadnt seen that in the papers. The article is spot on and I think the majority of us either serving or having served are deeply concerned as to the direction of the MoD. I am always gutted when the MoD responds with its rose tinted messages of glee at such news items.
It is tantamount to a smack in the face to all those whom are working very hard indeed to address these appalling issues.
I for one am still utterly dismayed that we are reliant on charity to ensure our wounded servicemen and women get the proper facilities in which to recover. That alone should be grounds for all of our concerns let alone the lack of funding toward any present and future programmes.
It is tantamount to a smack in the face to all those whom are working very hard indeed to address these appalling issues.
I for one am still utterly dismayed that we are reliant on charity to ensure our wounded servicemen and women get the proper facilities in which to recover. That alone should be grounds for all of our concerns let alone the lack of funding toward any present and future programmes.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
You are showing your age - what ever made you think that HMG had the interests of the UK at heart?
When I see the PM on the TV I feel that I am in the same room as the PCL - you will know what I mean!!!
You are showing your age - what ever made you think that HMG had the interests of the UK at heart?
When I see the PM on the TV I feel that I am in the same room as the PCL - you will know what I mean!!!
Thread Starter
You're right, Brown does indeed have the same 'smile on the face of the tiger' and unpleasant brooding presence which the PCL had!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Jesus, is that all we have left fighter wise? 91? how many does that equate to when you discount unservicabilities and ones on maintenence?....... 
I myself maintain a civilian fleet of 14 Aircraft these days... that equates to over a 1/6th of what the RAF can put in the Air on Air Defence..... Mindblowing.
I myself maintain a civilian fleet of 14 Aircraft these days... that equates to over a 1/6th of what the RAF can put in the Air on Air Defence..... Mindblowing.
Thread Starter
Whereas all the war commitments since the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been down to the wretched NuLabor government......
Options for Change might have been Conservative-led, but the abject failure to stump up the resources to meet the demands of their 11 years of American bum-licking commitments is an entirely Bliar/Brown act.
Options for Change might have been Conservative-led, but the abject failure to stump up the resources to meet the demands of their 11 years of American bum-licking commitments is an entirely Bliar/Brown act.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Sep 2008 at 20:25.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nostrinian.
I'm ex-coalface, and not really true 'blue'. I see the Torygraph for the crossword, we do at work and finish it in the pub (sad, I know).
No other newspaper printed those figures that the Torygraph did. Other referred to the report, but separated the 'meat' from the 'two veg'.
I appreciate the media follows (sometimes) the political party line, but the facts cannot be changed, no matter what the political spin. The UK military are the 'runt of the government litter' but are expected to produce the 'pedigree' goods.
Figures can be manipulated quote "35% in real terms" whatever that means, but facts cannot be.
UK Mil is being **** on from a great height. Fact.
I'm ex-coalface, and not really true 'blue'. I see the Torygraph for the crossword, we do at work and finish it in the pub (sad, I know).
No other newspaper printed those figures that the Torygraph did. Other referred to the report, but separated the 'meat' from the 'two veg'.
I appreciate the media follows (sometimes) the political party line, but the facts cannot be changed, no matter what the political spin. The UK military are the 'runt of the government litter' but are expected to produce the 'pedigree' goods.
Figures can be manipulated quote "35% in real terms" whatever that means, but facts cannot be.
UK Mil is being **** on from a great height. Fact.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I have no doubt about the poor morale in the Forces, but the graphical representation of the numbers tell a different story from the one most people see. In 1987 we were lined up 15 deep in Germany waiting for 3rd Shock Army to drop in via the Fulda and Coppenbrugge gaps. 1 (BR) Corps was huge, but had a very specific role, as did RAF Germany. The other stuff like NI and FI was good experience broadening stuff, and there were actually still a few sunshine posts left.
When the Berlin wall came down in 1989 it was the ideal time to restructure and re-role the Armed Forces, but no, Gulf War 1, the Balkans, Kosova, Afghanistan and Gulf War 2 came along with their own versions of crisis management. So here we are 19 years down the road with an Armed Forces that have been shaped and influenced by successive and systemic failures to invest in the right equipment, training and organizational structure.
The point is not, "look at all that kit we had in 1987", but "what is the most effective force structure to counter likely threats for the next 5-10 years". Not learning from wars is our most repeated fault, so before some Whitehall mandarin decides we don't need Minesweepers, or CAS, or Armoured Regiments as a cost saving exercise, we might wish to look at how we got to protecting Gulf shipping lanes, or supporting beleaguered infanty, or neutralising Iraqi armour over the last few years - you simply can't predict the next threat with any accuracy so you must have contingencies and spare capacity.
So the point is that today's equipment levels are not necessarily wrong, they just don't reflect any level of analysis or planning required for countering today's threats. They are simply the result of profligate and culpable Government policies over many years that have been led by Bean counter after Bean counter to the complete and total detriment of the Armed Forces, all the while being aided and abetted by a succession of Senior Officers.
When the Berlin wall came down in 1989 it was the ideal time to restructure and re-role the Armed Forces, but no, Gulf War 1, the Balkans, Kosova, Afghanistan and Gulf War 2 came along with their own versions of crisis management. So here we are 19 years down the road with an Armed Forces that have been shaped and influenced by successive and systemic failures to invest in the right equipment, training and organizational structure.
The point is not, "look at all that kit we had in 1987", but "what is the most effective force structure to counter likely threats for the next 5-10 years". Not learning from wars is our most repeated fault, so before some Whitehall mandarin decides we don't need Minesweepers, or CAS, or Armoured Regiments as a cost saving exercise, we might wish to look at how we got to protecting Gulf shipping lanes, or supporting beleaguered infanty, or neutralising Iraqi armour over the last few years - you simply can't predict the next threat with any accuracy so you must have contingencies and spare capacity.
So the point is that today's equipment levels are not necessarily wrong, they just don't reflect any level of analysis or planning required for countering today's threats. They are simply the result of profligate and culpable Government policies over many years that have been led by Bean counter after Bean counter to the complete and total detriment of the Armed Forces, all the while being aided and abetted by a succession of Senior Officers.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I see and hear and agree with your point. Of course I do. The public are not one single bit concerned with our standing, they lead the politos - no accident Labour got in 3 times, public have generally lapped Labour up, until very recently..
There are plenty of civilians who are either ex-mil or only 1 step removed, i.e. have a family member or close friend that is in. Of course the public are concerned about the state of the forces and the conditions for those in. Don't forget its in the terms of reference, for some parts of the media, to dig out the clueless minority, or the vocal 'all military are murderers, they deserve whatever sh1t they get' idiots and then quote them.
However, people do feel they they are effectively disenfranchised, in all aspects of the government of this country, of which the state of the forces is one aspect.
Out of my circle of family, friends and professional colleauges, there is nobody that could be described by your statement.
And in the broader sense, during the last election, only 22% of the electorate voted for labour. Hardly qualifies as lapping them up.
You've got more support than you might realise, and perhaps more than the politicians recognise as well. It deserves to be an election issue, and the more its placed in the line of sight of the politicians the more likely they are to realise it.
pb
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to think you were correct pb, and for those people close to you you probaly are.
The great unwashed are fickle beings, as any politician will tell you.
As a recent departee I fully understand the increase commitments over the last decade or so, and if our plight had have been properly highlighted 12-18 months ago, maybe we could expect something to be done about it. However the Armed Forces have always been good at "Getting the Job Done!!" We were our own worst enemy, and with YES men all over the place, it was never going to change.
With the credit crunch in full swing, all Joe Public will see is his/her bank balance going down the swanee. The country as a whole is in freefall.
Good 'ol Gordo flogged all our gold when it was at an all time low so now UK PLC is broke, and with public taxation at an all time high (or seemingly so at least), I seriously doubt whether anyone would sanction increased spending on HMF at present. No matter how good or noble the cause, I don't think Joe Public would put up with it.
People do have power. They can chosse one politico over another, but people will always go with what is best for them at the time. Which will put more money in my pocket and help me feed my family? The problem may not be completely NuLabour, but also Cons and LibDems for not actualy being a viable alternative.
The taloids have all done their part in our demise too. The Sun (which lets face it is read by a larger percentage of the UK populous than virtually any other paper!!) continually swing from
"Support our troops!!"
to
"Airmen waste money on foreign jollies!!" which we all know are actually legit training missions and the choice of accomodation is actually the cheapest on offer.
If we can get on the right wave at the right time, maybe some things could change (accomodation upgrade, new PPE etc).
If not, don't expect anything soon.
The great unwashed are fickle beings, as any politician will tell you.
As a recent departee I fully understand the increase commitments over the last decade or so, and if our plight had have been properly highlighted 12-18 months ago, maybe we could expect something to be done about it. However the Armed Forces have always been good at "Getting the Job Done!!" We were our own worst enemy, and with YES men all over the place, it was never going to change.
With the credit crunch in full swing, all Joe Public will see is his/her bank balance going down the swanee. The country as a whole is in freefall.
Good 'ol Gordo flogged all our gold when it was at an all time low so now UK PLC is broke, and with public taxation at an all time high (or seemingly so at least), I seriously doubt whether anyone would sanction increased spending on HMF at present. No matter how good or noble the cause, I don't think Joe Public would put up with it.
People do have power. They can chosse one politico over another, but people will always go with what is best for them at the time. Which will put more money in my pocket and help me feed my family? The problem may not be completely NuLabour, but also Cons and LibDems for not actualy being a viable alternative.
The taloids have all done their part in our demise too. The Sun (which lets face it is read by a larger percentage of the UK populous than virtually any other paper!!) continually swing from
"Support our troops!!"
to
"Airmen waste money on foreign jollies!!" which we all know are actually legit training missions and the choice of accomodation is actually the cheapest on offer.
If we can get on the right wave at the right time, maybe some things could change (accomodation upgrade, new PPE etc).
If not, don't expect anything soon.
Thread Starter
Nostrinian, I'm not sure why you saw fit to shoot the messenger?
Nevertheless, the UK's Armed Forces are suffering from overstretch and underfunding - and the RAF staggers on with an increasingly ageing fleet of aircraft, TypHoon excepted. Additionally, it cannot even afford its own training, so has had to opt for the 'PFI solution' of MFTS. Yet MFTS cannot even identify whence it will source its instructors.....
Who is responsible for this sorry state? A succession of yes men.
And it's looking increasingly that the sparrows are coming home to roost.
Nevertheless, the UK's Armed Forces are suffering from overstretch and underfunding - and the RAF staggers on with an increasingly ageing fleet of aircraft, TypHoon excepted. Additionally, it cannot even afford its own training, so has had to opt for the 'PFI solution' of MFTS. Yet MFTS cannot even identify whence it will source its instructors.....
Who is responsible for this sorry state? A succession of yes men.
And it's looking increasingly that the sparrows are coming home to roost.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Nostrinian, whilst I wear blue (
hint) and you know which way I will vote (probably) I believe that since the war that the Labour government has actually been as pro, if not more pro, than Tory.
Without deep research, who initiated the atom bomb project in the face of union resistance? Who ordered the V-bomber force? Who ordered the F4 and C130, the Jaguar etc? Who actually wanted to keep us east of Suez?
Who let the through-deck cruiser programme continue?
More recently of course there has been a dearth of funding at the coal face but who ordered new destroyers and carriers, SSBN, Typhoon etc.
I know that Labour also cancelled projects including the P1154 and one I shall not mention, but the balance sheet would be interesting.
Now for officers, to a man, voting Tory, well not quite all. But on the Denver principle like father, like son. Only if there is a distinct fallout betwen father and son does one vote the other way. In other words there will be great lag between officers changing voting allegiance and the general public.
With sheer weight of numbers the other ranks will be better representatives of the general public and again the Denver principle will apply. Like father, like son.
hint) and you know which way I will vote (probably) I believe that since the war that the Labour government has actually been as pro, if not more pro, than Tory.Without deep research, who initiated the atom bomb project in the face of union resistance? Who ordered the V-bomber force? Who ordered the F4 and C130, the Jaguar etc? Who actually wanted to keep us east of Suez?
Who let the through-deck cruiser programme continue?
More recently of course there has been a dearth of funding at the coal face but who ordered new destroyers and carriers, SSBN, Typhoon etc.
I know that Labour also cancelled projects including the P1154 and one I shall not mention, but the balance sheet would be interesting.
Now for officers, to a man, voting Tory, well not quite all. But on the Denver principle like father, like son. Only if there is a distinct fallout betwen father and son does one vote the other way. In other words there will be great lag between officers changing voting allegiance and the general public.
With sheer weight of numbers the other ranks will be better representatives of the general public and again the Denver principle will apply. Like father, like son.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
There are plenty of civilians who are either ex-mil or only 1 step removed, i.e. have a family member or close friend that is in. Of course the public are concerned about the state of the forces and the conditions for those in.
Many did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, and see massive mission creep in Afghanistan (John Read "no bullets will be fired"??). Their own communities are fractured (knife/gun crime, rise of BNP etc), the money thrown at the NHS and schools is having little impact, and the MoD wants more money - they don't get it. Pull back from these foreign wars and stop trying to be a world power, they argue.
Last edited by airborne_artist; 18th Sep 2008 at 08:54.