Manning Undershoot Imminent?
If anyone cares, Manning is the single biggest factor to the 3 Service Boards and the Defence Board, and they are working hard to fix it. What may, or may not, be palatable to the general audience is that the fix isn't going back to the way we did things before.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Alfred,
Always appreciate your top level view.
So go on then, if all of our gumpf on this thread is pure hot air is acknowledged, what is the Defence Board's future solution looking like (and please don't say NEM and AFPS 18).
We are smaller now, we are broke and future budget cuts inevitable - I totally get it, but how does the DB intend to hang onto its experience, highly trained people and still deliver motivated, high readiness capability with a genuine Service ethos.
Lots of press releases on shiney new equipment and procurements, but how is this new kit going to operated effectively and safely? More regulation? Less mission command? Less appetite for operational risk - as long as numbers/recruiting and training pipelines are maintained - all viable options, but I fear military capability/Whole Force Concept will be reduced or end in failure.
Or is there another plan to mitigate this loss of experience over the coming years?
Always appreciate your top level view.
So go on then, if all of our gumpf on this thread is pure hot air is acknowledged, what is the Defence Board's future solution looking like (and please don't say NEM and AFPS 18).
We are smaller now, we are broke and future budget cuts inevitable - I totally get it, but how does the DB intend to hang onto its experience, highly trained people and still deliver motivated, high readiness capability with a genuine Service ethos.
Lots of press releases on shiney new equipment and procurements, but how is this new kit going to operated effectively and safely? More regulation? Less mission command? Less appetite for operational risk - as long as numbers/recruiting and training pipelines are maintained - all viable options, but I fear military capability/Whole Force Concept will be reduced or end in failure.
Or is there another plan to mitigate this loss of experience over the coming years?
What may, or may not, be palatable to the general audience is that the fix isn't going back to the way we did things before.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You surprise me Alfred!
Many of your posts provide an insight into 'the big picture' (which even I recognise there is) at the 'top of the shop'.
We both know asking CAS during one of his get togethers/'informal' chats with his guys will not get anywhere near the reality of what the Defence Board is really talking about and planning.
Many of your posts provide an insight into 'the big picture' (which even I recognise there is) at the 'top of the shop'.
We both know asking CAS during one of his get togethers/'informal' chats with his guys will not get anywhere near the reality of what the Defence Board is really talking about and planning.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see today's PMQs seeing questions posed on the Armed Forces:
12:19 Armed forces
We are now onto questions from backbenchers. Tory Richard Drax urges a future Conservative government not to make any further cuts to the armed forces. The PM says the UK is spending 2% of its GDP on defence and will spend £160bn on new equipment in the next decade.
Not so good to see that the perception is that cuts equate to Armed Forces equipment and not to TACOS, working conditions and quality of life of its people that will operate and direct this equipment.
12:19 Armed forces
We are now onto questions from backbenchers. Tory Richard Drax urges a future Conservative government not to make any further cuts to the armed forces. The PM says the UK is spending 2% of its GDP on defence and will spend £160bn on new equipment in the next decade.
Not so good to see that the perception is that cuts equate to Armed Forces equipment and not to TACOS, working conditions and quality of life of its people that will operate and direct this equipment.
The issues that are being discussed in this thread apply to all Western Militaries. All of the issues around manning are a symptom of the bigger problem, that is a widening commitment vs capability gap.
Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks.
Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due......
Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks.
Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due......
The issues that are being discussed in this thread apply to all Western Militaries. All of the issues around manning are a symptom of the bigger problem, that is a widening commitment vs capability gap.
Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks.
Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting for current military leaders to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due......
Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks.
Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting for current military leaders to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due......
but that is nearing it's practicable limits.
I recall a Paratroop Colonel in 2002 saying during a discussion on when it was going to change "We're going to have to lose a couple of wars".
Well, we've lost two, and still no change.
MM4 - I wasn't being glib. First has been pretty blunt about the state of the RN Manning challenge, he also taken multiple questions on his latest tours of the dockyards etc about what he's doing about it. Z is a pretty positive chap, and will always accentuate the positives, but there also needs to a recognition that the old way isn't necessary the best way. As an example, the majority of the RN leaves after about 5 years; how on earth have come up with a training system that takes 10+ years to deliver an engineer? Why is it we are so inconsistent with training paths, and where are the silos based? Is there utility in taking a French system for nuclear engineers, where regardless of where you work (SSN, CdG or power station), you are employed by the state, and where we can give you shore drafts with some stability but keeping you current?
There is also something about Leadership, and accepting that we are where we are, but sometimes you just need to 'knife and fork your way through something'. Don't get me wrong, most of the NavSec (and 2SL himself) area probably need to be sacked, but the RN is expanding for the first time since WW2.
What needs to be cut - ruthlessly - is the OF5 buggers muddle, blurring the line between First's clear direction and able/willing sailors who want to crack on and do their jobs. There is far too much consent and evade, 'side-con' and working group-itis at the moment.
There is also something about Leadership, and accepting that we are where we are, but sometimes you just need to 'knife and fork your way through something'. Don't get me wrong, most of the NavSec (and 2SL himself) area probably need to be sacked, but the RN is expanding for the first time since WW2.
What needs to be cut - ruthlessly - is the OF5 buggers muddle, blurring the line between First's clear direction and able/willing sailors who want to crack on and do their jobs. There is far too much consent and evade, 'side-con' and working group-itis at the moment.
internationalplayboy, welcome to the PPRuNe virtual crewrrom and thanks for your 'coal face' gen.
All I can say is, what a bl**dy shame. Regrettably, I can no longer recommend to anyone's youngsters, no matter how enthusiastic they might be, that it'd be worth joining today's RAF.
All I can say is, what a bl**dy shame. Regrettably, I can no longer recommend to anyone's youngsters, no matter how enthusiastic they might be, that it'd be worth joining today's RAF.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: South coast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all- casual observer for many years!
Beagle- Why be a dream stealer? We all heard the stories while we were young and aspiring about how things were not as good as they used to be and my overriding memory was of the many, many nay sayers both mil, ex-mil, and civilian. Did it stop me? No. It made it feel like running through treacle though!
Surely it is now our role to encourage the passion in the next generation in the knowledge that we understand the essence if not the detail of how things will be for them in the current and future military.
Any words of discouragement would be based on our paradigm, not theirs, and it is not fair to be the wet blanket when we should be the ones making their eyes sparkle as we describe our own journey.
For me it was all about the flying and there are few places anyone can experience the type of flying we did than in the RAF. I'm pretty sure that many aspiring pilots will feel the same. Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though.
Beagle- Why be a dream stealer? We all heard the stories while we were young and aspiring about how things were not as good as they used to be and my overriding memory was of the many, many nay sayers both mil, ex-mil, and civilian. Did it stop me? No. It made it feel like running through treacle though!
Surely it is now our role to encourage the passion in the next generation in the knowledge that we understand the essence if not the detail of how things will be for them in the current and future military.
Any words of discouragement would be based on our paradigm, not theirs, and it is not fair to be the wet blanket when we should be the ones making their eyes sparkle as we describe our own journey.
For me it was all about the flying and there are few places anyone can experience the type of flying we did than in the RAF. I'm pretty sure that many aspiring pilots will feel the same. Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though.
Thread Starter
Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though
LJ
Thread Starter
Alfred
I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%.
There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point. So in the spirit of the greatest conspiracy theories, it is suggested that the perceived erosion of terms and conditions has been done in a targetted manner in order to reduce the pension burden.
"Get 'em in while they're keen, use them while they're young and then get 'em out before they cost too much" - sounds like a manning strategy to me!
LJ
I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%.
There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point. So in the spirit of the greatest conspiracy theories, it is suggested that the perceived erosion of terms and conditions has been done in a targetted manner in order to reduce the pension burden.
"Get 'em in while they're keen, use them while they're young and then get 'em out before they cost too much" - sounds like a manning strategy to me!
LJ
There are only HUGE savings to be made if it costs little to train your pers. This is generally not the case for technical forces of the modern era.
False economy. "Different budget" springs to mind.
False economy. "Different budget" springs to mind.
Thread Starter
Marly
But if you're going to lose them at 16-24 years anyway and if you make things so bad that the initial enthusiasm wanes at 12-15 years then that could be the strategy? Yes, the churn has happened slightly earlier.
Also, don't forget that those on 16 year AFPS75 pensions are dwindling fast - the last will be past that point in 2020. So holding out for 18, 20 and 22 will be required for an early departure payment.
This is complete guess-work on my part, but just like NEM not being a cost-saving exercise, it does all seem to point to a strategy that saves money in the longer term.
LJ
But if you're going to lose them at 16-24 years anyway and if you make things so bad that the initial enthusiasm wanes at 12-15 years then that could be the strategy? Yes, the churn has happened slightly earlier.
Also, don't forget that those on 16 year AFPS75 pensions are dwindling fast - the last will be past that point in 2020. So holding out for 18, 20 and 22 will be required for an early departure payment.
This is complete guess-work on my part, but just like NEM not being a cost-saving exercise, it does all seem to point to a strategy that saves money in the longer term.
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%.
There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point.
There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point.
A kid straight out of school won't have the experience, skill set, knowledge and more importantly these days... the auths to get an ac serviceable when you need it. Bear in mind when kids leave Cosford they're still not auth'd / qualified, especially to work on Typhoon.
It's the difference between spending all night looking at a fault, chasing your tail and the ac still U/S after the shift has ended and an experienced guy having seen the fault before and knows how best to fix it.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late reply to jayc530:
Thanks for the info on the IBN (64?).
I have read through this and also spoken to PSF, it appears that things have been delayed (no surprise there) and that the offers for an additional 2 years service will be going out in Feb 15 and I am out in Jan 15..... So I will not be in the time frame- a bit annoying as I feel that I still have a lot of experience and knowledge to offer the Service.
But, c'est la vie.
Thanks for the info on the IBN (64?).
I have read through this and also spoken to PSF, it appears that things have been delayed (no surprise there) and that the offers for an additional 2 years service will be going out in Feb 15 and I am out in Jan 15..... So I will not be in the time frame- a bit annoying as I feel that I still have a lot of experience and knowledge to offer the Service.
But, c'est la vie.