Forces' productivity
Productivity
Originally Posted by A and C
...Training directly connected with military matters might well be considered productive but what of adventure training and sport both of these are used to keep mind and body fit but are not a direct military task?...
However, I could always rely for consolation on reading DCIs which revealed that over 90% of the personnel participating in skiing, diving and sailing expeds in exotic locations, or representing the United Services in sports fixtures, were Army or RAF. Their productivity was truly inspirational.
Last edited by FODPlod; 11th Mar 2013 at 13:00. Reason: to clean up syntax
Hovermonkey - thanks for an interesting post.
With this evidence that harmony breaches are routinely tolerated in the RN, perhaps Dr Redford would care to develop a proposal to remove the concept of harmony entirely - it can't be that much of a stretch?
I can't stand it when starred officers come out with glib lines such as 'people first' when it is evident that 'turf' comes first, 'capability' is somewhere in mid-table and 'people' languish at the bottom (somewhere alongside 'value for money').
With this evidence that harmony breaches are routinely tolerated in the RN, perhaps Dr Redford would care to develop a proposal to remove the concept of harmony entirely - it can't be that much of a stretch?
I can't stand it when starred officers come out with glib lines such as 'people first' when it is evident that 'turf' comes first, 'capability' is somewhere in mid-table and 'people' languish at the bottom (somewhere alongside 'value for money').
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street,
Valid points. I just struggle myself with where the credit for military action lies. You can pick any number of heroes of any cloth who are feted because of their kills - Immelman, Bader, Voss, Carmichael. So surely we are comfortable with personally claiming 'kills' - but you are right to bring up the fact that it isn't so simple. But we don't attribute their victories to a service - otherwise we'd never have heard of them.
I think what irks me the most about the argument is that a small percentage of people join in an oft repeated nonsense that one service is better/ worse than the other due to the air-to-air success rate (kills spelt in a fluffy way) of people flying in its aeroplanes. It makes no sense to me - just as it would make no sense to say 'H Jones didn't charge that position, The Parachute Regiment charged that position'.
Sorry, back to the thread.
Valid points. I just struggle myself with where the credit for military action lies. You can pick any number of heroes of any cloth who are feted because of their kills - Immelman, Bader, Voss, Carmichael. So surely we are comfortable with personally claiming 'kills' - but you are right to bring up the fact that it isn't so simple. But we don't attribute their victories to a service - otherwise we'd never have heard of them.
I think what irks me the most about the argument is that a small percentage of people join in an oft repeated nonsense that one service is better/ worse than the other due to the air-to-air success rate (kills spelt in a fluffy way) of people flying in its aeroplanes. It makes no sense to me - just as it would make no sense to say 'H Jones didn't charge that position, The Parachute Regiment charged that position'.
Sorry, back to the thread.
Dr Redford, for whatever reason [1] , chooses not to highlight his past affiliations in a fair number of his published outputs - this means that (a) he is sometimes written off as another tree-hugging, sandal-wearing inky-fingered scribbler who'd be hard pressed to comment accurately on whether RN uniform is dark blue when he in fact has a degree of practical knowledge greater than most of those in academia or (b) he can be in danger of being perceived as overly partial (some of his output on the decisions in SDSR was er... clearly that of a former RN officer who remains fiercely proud of his service, shall we say).
It may be that his output which seeks to influence decision-makers comes without reference to his past affiliations since it is known in those circles - but it is useful to be aware of it when debating his comments, I'd argue.
As you note, though, there is a danger that he simply gets written off from the start as a swivel-eyed kabourophobe with a doctorate, which would do him a disservice, so perhaps I should have exchanged a rare attempt at brevity for a slightly more detailed observation.
[1] Edit - and this is entirely legitimate. I can think of a decorated former army NCO now in academia who has only referenced his past life once, yet who writes extensively on military matters, particularly those involving his former employer
Last edited by Archimedes; 11th Mar 2013 at 00:53.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes,
For what it's worth I find your posts amongst the most balanced and informative in the forum. I wasn't talking about anything that you posted per se - it was another poster who waded in with the 'Twaddle, rubbish, not true, case dismissed' line/ depth of argument.
Cheers,
Orca.
For what it's worth I find your posts amongst the most balanced and informative in the forum. I wasn't talking about anything that you posted per se - it was another poster who waded in with the 'Twaddle, rubbish, not true, case dismissed' line/ depth of argument.
Cheers,
Orca.
Bismark
A bit off topic (sorry) but...
Everyone gets the op welfare package (apart from the mine hunter force in the ME), its the R'n'R bit you gain over 4 months. The RAF stopped doing 4 month and 2 day tours some time ago; you deploy for <4 months (and no R'n'R) or 6 months+. And I believe that we are all going to 6 months+ now anyway.
A bit off topic (sorry) but...
It is a bit like the deployment rates for individuals. When I was serving one always used to see an RAF individual deployed for 4months and 2 days - why? The answer appeared to be that if he/she served for less than this then he/she would not be entitled to the Op Welfare package!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
Thanks for that....I am somewhat out of date.
The important thing about the harmony rules is that each Service should be able to justify them. It is hardest to sense that these rules are right when you have Services operating alongside each other, whether in the field or on a ship, with effectively the same kit and outputs yet one Service apparently can be far more efficient with its people. This will become stark again when the question of lengthy embarkations of Jointly manned JSF sqns become a reality.
Thanks for that....I am somewhat out of date.
The important thing about the harmony rules is that each Service should be able to justify them. It is hardest to sense that these rules are right when you have Services operating alongside each other, whether in the field or on a ship, with effectively the same kit and outputs yet one Service apparently can be far more efficient with its people. This will become stark again when the question of lengthy embarkations of Jointly manned JSF sqns become a reality.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is all too simplistic, then being totally transparent and Joint in this current fiscal environment what is the method of measuring Operational Capability, Efficiency, and Value for Money?
I think that HMT/MoD know that Air Power provides a contingent capability with speed (through Expeditionary Air Wings), and Sea Power more slowly (through a future Carrier Task Group?? (which also includes Amphibious shipping I think?), but I get the impression that HMT/MoD cannot afford to resource both properly and either salami slice both (spread betting the risk and reducing each capability), or investing properly on the contingency model that most likely suits future contingency conflicts.
So it would appear that the question is what does an EAW deliver that a CTG can't? With correct investment (i.e.not salami slicing) could an EAW deliver the same effect as a CTG (or vice versa)? With harmony possibly being but one metric of efficiency, when viewed holistically is a CTG more efficient than an EAW? How many EAWs does it take to deliver the same output and capability as a CTG?
For example, I don't see a CTG in 2016 with any embedded ISTAR/UAS or Air to Air refueling and therefore EAWs will still be required in the future. However,I do see future EAWs being able to deliver all of the CTG capability (with maybe the exception of the occasional niche and high resource over the beach amphibious assault/demonstration).
I agree it has less to do with the myopic argument on single Service harmony, and more to do with what can actually deliver the capability, and if there is not the funding to properly resource both Air and Maritime contingent capabilities, which one delivers the most capability more efficiently across the whole spectrum of measuring capability and not just harmony.
Worst case is that we end up with 2 methods of delivering a contingent capability on paper, but in reality due to the lack of future funding both not truly being able to deliver what is expected of them.
I think that HMT/MoD know that Air Power provides a contingent capability with speed (through Expeditionary Air Wings), and Sea Power more slowly (through a future Carrier Task Group?? (which also includes Amphibious shipping I think?), but I get the impression that HMT/MoD cannot afford to resource both properly and either salami slice both (spread betting the risk and reducing each capability), or investing properly on the contingency model that most likely suits future contingency conflicts.
So it would appear that the question is what does an EAW deliver that a CTG can't? With correct investment (i.e.not salami slicing) could an EAW deliver the same effect as a CTG (or vice versa)? With harmony possibly being but one metric of efficiency, when viewed holistically is a CTG more efficient than an EAW? How many EAWs does it take to deliver the same output and capability as a CTG?
For example, I don't see a CTG in 2016 with any embedded ISTAR/UAS or Air to Air refueling and therefore EAWs will still be required in the future. However,I do see future EAWs being able to deliver all of the CTG capability (with maybe the exception of the occasional niche and high resource over the beach amphibious assault/demonstration).
I agree it has less to do with the myopic argument on single Service harmony, and more to do with what can actually deliver the capability, and if there is not the funding to properly resource both Air and Maritime contingent capabilities, which one delivers the most capability more efficiently across the whole spectrum of measuring capability and not just harmony.
Worst case is that we end up with 2 methods of delivering a contingent capability on paper, but in reality due to the lack of future funding both not truly being able to deliver what is expected of them.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 11th Mar 2013 at 15:44.
Originally Posted by MaroonMan4
If this is all too simplistic, then being totally transparent and Joint in this current fiscal environment what is the method of measuring Operational Capability, Efficiency, and Value for Money?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
A question - but if there is a joke in there, I am happy for you
I genuinely have no idea how one measures productivity of the single Services, but harmony on its own does not appear to be the answer?
A question - but if there is a joke in there, I am happy for you
I genuinely have no idea how one measures productivity of the single Services, but harmony on its own does not appear to be the answer?
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 11th Mar 2013 at 15:52.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM4, The problem with an EAW when compared to a CTG is that it cannot "poise". It either moves forward to a FOB or it stays in UK, there is no in between mode. Thus the political decision to deploy will always be set at a far higher bar than for a CTG and in consequence it's ability to influence is weak. That is assuming a friendly FOB can be found near the area to be influenced.
Not sure what this has to do with the original post but hey, we are on page three.
Not sure what this has to do with the original post but hey, we are on page three.
This will become stark again when the question of lengthy embarkations of Jointly manned JSF sqns become a reality
On JFH (
), where IIRC there was a little bit of 'jointery' in some roles/appointments, which rules did the RN bods apply when on an RAF numbered squadron and which rules applied when RAF bods were on the NSW?Each Service will argue that theirs is the best way to measure harmony. The easiest way to resolve the situation is to get rid of harmony (fairly certain it was only introduced to give another metric on which to report morale) - after all Service life is a 24/7/365 commitment .....
Last edited by Wrathmonk; 11th Mar 2013 at 16:21.
I was, by that daft fishead's definition, completely unproductive on my first tour, I'm glad to say, because I never carried out my primary duty.
Which was to drop a hydrogen bomb.
Which was to drop a hydrogen bomb.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I recognise you are being sarcastic, but actually we should think about what you just said.
In peacetime, which generally covered the period you served, the ideal circumstance which we should work towards is everybody in the services being unproductive.
ie, doing nothing but training waiting for something to happen.
Everybody actually doing something important in peacetime is not available when the balloon goes up to go and warfight, because their job is actually important and still needs doing.
I think that this is one of the problems when civvies try to "lean" the military process. They need to do it during total war to make the process valid.
A perfectly poised military force in peacetime would be the opposite of a civilian company, ie 100% unproductive.
Hmmmm. Now that's my kind of military.
I recognise you are being sarcastic, but actually we should think about what you just said.
In peacetime, which generally covered the period you served, the ideal circumstance which we should work towards is everybody in the services being unproductive.
ie, doing nothing but training waiting for something to happen.
Everybody actually doing something important in peacetime is not available when the balloon goes up to go and warfight, because their job is actually important and still needs doing.
I think that this is one of the problems when civvies try to "lean" the military process. They need to do it during total war to make the process valid.
A perfectly poised military force in peacetime would be the opposite of a civilian company, ie 100% unproductive.
Hmmmm. Now that's my kind of military.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the current concept of a CTG (or even UK Response Force Task group) to contain embedded Booties, so it is more akin to a USMC / USN MEU?
In that sense will be more self contained and can poise / posture and then take and hold ground and arguably SLOCs in addition to (if the jets work) some measure of Air to Mud and Air to air. Whether it is Dave B (JSFFan stand fast! I am just supposing) (other effective carrier-borne fast air is available [at a price]).
In that sense will be more self contained and can poise / posture and then take and hold ground and arguably SLOCs in addition to (if the jets work) some measure of Air to Mud and Air to air. Whether it is Dave B (JSFFan stand fast! I am just supposing) (other effective carrier-borne fast air is available [at a price]).
I was, by that daft fishead's definition, completely unproductive on my first tour, I'm glad to say, because I never carried out my primary duty.
Which was to drop a hydrogen bomb.
Which was to drop a hydrogen bomb.
I'd be interested in the background to this state of affairs because responsibility for the nuclear deterrent had been transferred to the RN's Polaris SSBNs some 14 years previously, i.e. on 15 June 1968.
I'd be interested in the background to this state of affairs because responsibility for the nuclear deterrent had been transferred to the RN's Polaris SSBNs some 14 years previously, i.e. on 15 June 1968.
Many of the Great Unwashed seem to think that Vulcans stopped having a nuclear role in 1968. Nothing could have been further from the truth!
because responsibility for the nuclear deterrent
IIRC the RAF stopped nuclear QRA in about 1998???