Armed Forces unfit for purpose?
 

Today a report has been issued by the Armed Forces Select Committee, which states that they are not convinced the armed forces will be able to do what is asked of them by 2015. This was the result of a study by a cross party group of MP's, and informed by the most senior of our officers.

This is not news to any member of the armed forces I would suggest.

On the way home from work today, I had the great misfortune of listening to the Defence Sec, Liam Fox, being questioned on the issue. He said that 'I do not agree with the outcome of the report. The armed forces are capable of meeting both their current commitments, and any that they will be asked to carry out in the future' (I paraphrase - can't remember the exact words, but I am not far wrong and the meaning is correct)

What chance do we have? The best and brightest of the Officers in the military, with 100's of years service between them, can tell him 'how it is', and this politician, can simply say 'you are wrong - we are fine'.

We have no chance, and no future. Our senior officers are unable and in any event unwilling to stand up to the Gov't. It started when Gordon Brown made it, in my view, his personal mission to destroy the Armed Forces and has continued ever since.

How do we get through to the Gov't that we do actually know what we are talking about? That defence is our business and we are right? I suggest that our senior officers are unable to act on our behalf - effectively impotent, and it is up to the rest of us.

I feel passionately that the corporate knowledge exists amongst the forces to be more powerful, more efficient, and 'better' at what we do. The knowledge of how to improve in the most cost effective way exists. But probably not above SO2 level. Those above appear to me to have sacrificed their principles, and been seduced by management speak at Staff college.

Chaps, we know better, but how do we get the message across to senior officers and politicians that they don't have the first clue what they are talking about?

We are not well. We are underfunded, overstretched, worn out, and it's getting worse. We will break, and soon (much is already broken), but when the politician charged with our command says, effectively, 'rubbish - it's all fine', I could cry.

Most will probably think I am being too easy on Dr Fox here, or naive, or both but... I think he has a fairly reasonable grasp of his brief compared to most recent predecessors.

He is hardly going to say "yes, you're right it's one big s*** sandwich'. He could, but then he'd get fired. Sure, we could do with some leaders with a spine, but equally you've got to pick your battles. I think Dr Fox will probably be thinking that having promised the Select Committee on behalf of the government that all will be well, he will use that as leverage against the Chancellor after 2015. I would also be surprised if he wasn't privately encouraging the Select Committee.

Or maybe he knows it's just a battle he's not going to win.

chopabeefer,

You take issue with the statement:

"The armed forces are capable of meeting both their current commitments, and any that they will be asked to carry out in the future' "

While the second part is speculative and was the main focus of the Select Committee's criticism, the first part is palpably true. We HAVE met our past commitments and we ARE meeting our current ones. The fact that this is causing massive strain across all of the Services is clear and Fox, to be fair, did not say 'we are fine'. But the reality is that we will not fail to deliver on current ops.

To imply that we will fail to deliver in Libya or Afgan would simply undermine our credibility when we as a Service try to articulate the real effect of the cuts. There are enough people outside (and especially in the Treasury) who already think we tell lies. Let's not start.

And for God's sake don't tell anyone how to improve things in the most cost effective way - they'll promote you above SO2 and you'll clearly then forget everything!

In order for something to be defined as "unfit for purpose" then everyone has to agree what the "purpose" of the organization is.....!! That is actually a more profound statement than it sounds.


If the military can't meet all its commitments, then the commitments will have to be reduced, its as simple as that! The difficult part is persuading the politicians that you can't meet a commitment when they think otherwise......

I think our military personnel are fit for purpose but they are not equipped for purpose which is another thing entirely!

Hear Hear!

Guess the date:

No aircraft, no ships, and no tanks.

Armed forces manpower at 2000.

But there will always be a future in the Services for some people. All they have to do is learn to play a musical instrument.

This is because we will always have ceremonial bands to strut up and down Whitehall in rememberance of the once unequalled military forces in a place which used to be called Great Britain.

I am pleased that I am no longer a member of the RAF.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Until we start from basics we'll never have a genuine Strategic Defence Review.

The primary task is to defend the home base. Not is there a threat to UK but how do we defend it if the worst scenario develops. Please don't say it never could................................................

From that base we need a home defence force (Army), a maritime defence force (Navy) and an air force.

The Army could be relatively small. A robust home defence force equipped to fight on home soil isn't expensive. The Navy needs to be way more than the 50 capital ships that is now merely a pipe dream. It will take time to rebuild that capabilty. the Air Force needs to provide air defence forces and maritime patrol. Its not too late but we're getting there. Now, a defensive force doesn't win wars so lets not neglect the offensive air for too long. Hopefully F35 will deliver.

I started simplistically but it's maybe [Edit typo to please LM] fundamentals that we seem to have forgotten in the recent offshore patrols.

So if we want to venture further afield we need to spend more than we cuurently spend.

Put your rose coloured sunglasses on Sunshine, and check your syntax and punctuation!!

Would you like to tell me what an F35 is............???????

So sorry - not "is" - what "will be"!!!

"So sorry - not "is" - what "will be"!!! "

Surely - not "will", but rather "should be, maybe..."

To play Devil’s Advocate, this only holds true for a very short period after the equipment no longer exists, or when training has been completed and they find no equipment has been bought. Someone who has only trained to be a driver, but has no car, serves no purpose; and so has no purpose to be fit for.

Excellent points being made and are we coping with all our current commitments or are the commitments being trimmed to allow us to cope?

The Royal Navy always had a warship patrolling the West Indies mainly to deter\detect drug smuggling and also to provide humanitarian assistance when required; following the regular hurricanes and tropical storms. At the height of the hurricane season there would also be a civilian manned Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel on station that would also offer aid (It carries Royal Navy helicopter\s manned by RN crew)

That has now changed, owing to a lack of warships there is now just a civilian manned RFA with a small detachment of Royal Marines.

Again due to a lack of ships we no longer have any warships deployed to the Far East (they do however deploy for the odd exercise)

So are we fulfilling our commitments or are the commitments being modified due to a lack of resource?

I wrote some time ago that the only event that will prompt an apolitical review of UK Defence will be a defeat of some sort or another, be it tactical like an outpost overrun or something more strategic like a Falklands level task force being defeated. I don't write that flippantly and I dread the time it happens. In the mean time Defence Secretaries will play word games, SO2s will do whatever it takes to get to the highest pension point they can in 16 years and the Defence sector will continue to exploit the MoD's naivety, lack of business acumen and politically-led opportunities to sell kit that could be bought off the shelf a lot cheaper.

Generals will get vociferous after leaving post, the odd serving conscience outburst will get headlines then sidelines and the core purpose of defence will continue to get watered down in the name of political expediency: gay pride ProjOs ahead of sufficient aircraft techs to keep the fleet in the sky.

I left nearly 3 years ago and am only suprised we have dodged some sort of disaster so far; but I think this is only down to a core of individuals who are gradually being ground down by increasingly personnel-focused cuts and reductions in quality of life.

America is about to neuter her military and in 20 years we will be in an interesting place, perhaps choosing between Indian or Chinese allies - both of whom will have the cash and military reach to secure the worlds' remaining resources.

If you don't know what to spend your resettlement on, how about a Mandarin or Hindi course?

Lightning Mate, Old Mucker, Old Chap.

I try to make a point about Air Power fundamentals and you bring it down to syntax and punctuation:* Good to see you have the staff skills squared away when mine have atrophied. This is a discussion forum not Staff College. Sad but I'd have expected better from an Air Defender. As for rose tinted spectacles, I put those into storage quite a few years ago. Nowadays I'm just saddened how little we can offer despite the resources we commit.

F-35 Lightning II Program

And by the way, the true cost of operating a stealth platform hasn't even been considered yet.

Iraq is done. AFG will end soon. Libya is a stalemate that will end when Ghadaffi moves on. Once that occurs, we'll be back to fundamentals. Of course, just my humble opinion.

An interesting question, and not one I often dwell on, but somebody posted on another forum the other day that they believe the R.A.F. has a far superior combat capability now than they did 10 years ago. This is, of course, an unqualified statement. I personally think this is nosense when every aspect of the then and now is considered. But I thought I'd open it up to more knowledgable individuals here for a inside appraisal, so to speak.

FB:)

FinningleyBoy,

It is an interesting question, although if you are a politician / very senior officer then the answer is obvious - of course we are more capable now than 10 years ago.

Now I wouldn't argue that our technical capabilities have come on in leaps and bounds. But I would qualify it by saying our remaining technical capabilities have come on in leaps and bounds - I would hardly say that in terms of MPA we were in a better place now than 10 years ago.

But you can also look at it in terms of numbers. Typhoon and JSF may well be outstanding platforms, so the future looks rosy, but they can't be in 2 places at once. Quantity certainly has a role to play in determining overall quality, hence why we are now struggling to maintain our current level of commitments in multiple locations and operations, which I would argue might not have been the case to the same extent 10 years ago.

Cheers Melchett01,

I posted a reply to the chap on the other forum and made the same point with a degree of flippancy, for good humoured measure!;)

FB:)

FB,

The classic (and true) responses used to along the lines of:

2 FJ with PGMs today can achieve the same results it took 1,000 Lancasters in WW2. (a similar example was well illustrated in Vietnam, where one of the earliest uses of LGBs enabled a bridge to be destroyed that had survived multiple raids with conventional iron bombs)

A 4th generation fighter can shoot down 4 F-16s before they even know it's there.

etc.



However, the counter arguement to that is that even the best asset in the world can't be in two places at once. Eventually you end up with a very few, very expensive, highly capable assets that you are afraid of losing, either in combat or training, which ultimately makes you risk averse, where any unserviceability has a disproportionate effect, and limits how many places you can be effective in at once.....

Following a swingeing round of defence cuts, the headline on the front page of the RAF News proclaimed:
"Leaner Force Packs Bigger Punch!"

I cancelled my subscription to said broadsheet.

That was in 1975!

Hmmm I think I'd argue about that, It would take a lot more than 2 FJ to wipe out a counter value target such a a large arms or aircraft factory or come to that an oil refinery. (I'm discounting the bucket of sunshine option)

Plus the fact that if you lost a dozen or so Lancasters in a 1000 bomber raid it didn't have a noticeable effect on the overall scheme of things, loose the same amount of FJs and it would seriously jeopardise the county's ability to wage war.