What would you like to see changed in MOD and across the Services?
 

Of all things that must change, is better delivery of The Offer of Service and the loss of values-based thinking at the top which erodes it. If you have never actually read The Offer, I would encourage you to do so for it is the closest thing you have to an employment contract. The current philosophy of the Chain fo Command is to protect the reputation of our Armed Forces at all costs, and not the service person who contributes to it. This allows for, for example, the cover up of injustice within, leading to the total loss of the reputation one wishes to preserve of course.

An indicator that leads to this outcome is in matters of military justice that involve you, Defence will investigate itself, and mark itself, for itself. If you disagree with the outcome of the Chain of Command as a result of what is an 'ineffective, inefficient and unfair' complaint process give the way that the Chain of Command exercise it, you can invite The Ombudsman to take a look. But... before wasting your time there, you would be wise to note that whilst her decisions are binding, her recommendations are not. The wrong that she may record, years later, is left to Defence to right, should they wish to do so, and only in the way they want to do so as a means of protecting the reputation - not you.

Your Ombudsman has no power - but she does have a £2M annual budget.

Those who serve need better access to justice and independent advice as to how to go and get it.

Yesterday, to better help you then and your families, and veterans, should you ever find yourselves entangled in military (in)justice, you can now get that independent advice and counsel, free, from those in the know. A bunch of capable, credible and highly committed people have set up Justice4Troops for you. Look out for Justice4Troops coming your way. It is the first of its kind.

With The Offer failing to deliver true to its purpose, you(we) will continue to endure the poison that ruins the lives of our people when investigations of complaint are done BY the military, FOR the military in order to meet he military need - which is not you. It is the reputation as the first order. The new Defence authority will deliver the same outcome - injustice perpetrated by the some of the worst in Defence against some of the best in Defence, then you will be abandoned and isolated if you dare to complain. Should you complain, you will then find that you've no independent representation nor the means to access justice whilst at the same time, you find yourself being punished for complaining about something serious - sexual assault being an example, such that offence repeats itself due poor investigation with the opportunity to learn being lost. We must introduce an independent line of enquiry as an end to end.

If you do not have a safe means to secure justice for your people, and currently those who serve in our Armed Forces do not, then you have no Offer worth its salt. That may contribute to the ongoing retention and recruitment crisis, which in turn, the Chain of Command, being unable to recover either, places yet more emphasis on reputation as part of the cover up, but at your expense.

If anyone knows how to set up a website for Justice4Troops, and/or a FB site, pm me please!

1. Reversal of contractorisation.

2. Civil servants and Military personnel being held to account for bad decisions

Bring back good conduct stripes, so good conduct can be balanced against bad, get a charge lose a stripe or two.

The Offer
 

Referencing my previous...The Offer of Service

Chief of Defence Personnel (CDP) Foreward

People lie at the heart of operational capability; attracting and retaining the right numbers of capable, motivated individuals to deliver Defence outputs is critical. This is dependent upon maintaining a credible and realistic offer that earns and retains the trust of people in Defence. In order to achieve this, all personnel must be confident that, not only will they be treated fairly, but also that their families will be treated properly and that Service veterans and their dependants will be respected and appropriately supported.

You have no employment contract
You have no Independent Representation
You have no Independent Federation
You have no access to free legal advice
You can be loyal, disciplined and true to the flag but you will still get thrown under the bus by the Chain of Command to preserve the reputation of the Armed Forces
And when you enter the veteran sector.....well good luck navigating your way through that mess!

Good question, difficult answer. Each to his own.

I'd keep it simple at first:

Implement mandated Requirement Scrutiny rules. They're there to prevent waste, and make sure you get the right kit/capability at the right cost. The difficulty is that various Ministers/PUSs over the last 23 years are on record as disagreeing; and MoD has largely ignored the concept ever since. Perhaps a task for Captain Mercer MP, if Boris gives him the job.

Do that, and an awful lot falls into place.

Bring back the "Tot"!

I suggest the intent of this quote be applied figuratively not literally....but I could be persuaded.

It applies as much to the US DOD as it does the UK MOD....both military and civilian.

What a question! How long have you got? nothing will change until we get a government which understands the importance of defence. Whilst successive PMs/Cabinets favour so-called celebs (think Blair) and place great importance on throwing money at benefits/health/education, but without discovering the causes of why those department are short of money, defence with take a low priority. However, without adequate defence, they may be no health, education or benefits. So what would I personally like to see change? A wiser government which is not obsessed with PR & celebs. At the very least, let's have a few ex good military in the government. Notice I say 'good' as not all ex military MPs are good.

But the key point here is that the SP headcount constraints should be lifted! Otherwise we are just re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, only the 'deckchairs' are a tiny number of personnel and kit well below critical mass.
Maybe refund Defence by scrapping the commitment to splurge £14B a year on the Indian space programme under the guise of foreign aid...

Contractorisation has increased timescales for getting anything done, all flexibility has gone because anything 'extra' or 'new' has to be re-negotiated into the contract. It's woeful. IT is rubbish and not fit for purpose, getting any building works, even low end maintenance, takes forever. It would require an uplift in manpower and skills but you asked what I'd change and that would be #1.

TBH RAF IT was never exactly brilliant- all the good guys 'n girls make so much more in civvie street and without all the discipline etc etc

Is this in terms of developing a new capability? Could you give me a bit more information (PM if you like).

NZWP

Here is the problem.

"People lie at the heart of operational capability..."

Some take this as a statement of what is at the core, others take it as an instruction to mislead others.

It relates to ANY proposed expenditure, be it a pencil or an aircraft carrier. The only difference is the level of approval.

The Asst Under Secretary of State (Financial & Secretariat) issued a comprehensive questionnaire for each main domain. For example, RN aircraft and their equipment. Any negative answer stopped the process in its tracks. The very first question is 'Why is it needed?' It addresses things like War Reserves, training, contracting strategy, industrial capability, etc. It forced the Provisioning Authority to think. (A civilian engineer in a Service HQ in my day, but the work simply isn't done now).

I agree with those who have mentioned contractorisation. If one applied the RS rules, I can't see how many such proposals would get past first base. Nimrod would never have been considered for RMPA. Chinook Mk3 wouldn't have proceeded in the manner it did (access to source code is the obvious one). The list is endless.

Importantly, RS must be conducted from the User's point of view. It seldom is.

Hope this helps. I could e-mail a copy of one set of AUS(FS)'s instructions, from the last time they were used. Also, the 1996 report by the Director Internal Audit notifying PUS (the Chief Accounting Oficer) that RS wasn't being conducted properly. He didn't act and the report was scrapped. It was one of the key pieces of evidence to the MoK and Nimrod Reviews, explaining the background to the policy of savings at the expense of safety.

The Offer
 

I like what you did there! I've never thought of a different way to interpret this line other than in the sincerity behind it.....

What you highlight explains everything....it almost gives people like that the auth to behave like that....worryingly so

Comes with experience.
I wonder how many here remember the instructions to the Orderly Officer which stated "The Orderly Officer is to drink in moderation...". If ever met with the question, "You are on duty, why are you in the bar?" You could refer the inquisitor to the aforementioned directive ;-)

The Thirsd Annual Report of SDSR 2015 and NSS has just been published by the Cabinet Office:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...rt_-_FINAL.pdf

It's basically a stocktake of what HMG has been up to over the last year. It is quite a challengin read (60-odd pages) but it does sum up the extraordinary amount of effort there is in the defence and security areas. Section 4(c) pp 44-47 are well worth reading to see the amount of work being put into innovation across these sectors.

Good for Nutty - who appears to be the only person so far to have read and answered the exam question as initially posed! - and I fully agree both with the spirit of his third paragraph in particular, and his separate thread on the subject, the good sense of which is only too well highlighted by recent events in the Gulf. Whilst our frigates have come a long way since Tribal Class frigates were allegedly deployed there on the basis that governments on either side of the Gulf were impressed by the fact that they had two funnels, rather than one, the Iranians are clearly no longer in any doubt about our lack of readily available assets.

On a personal note, my best wishes to Whenurhappy on returning to the fold.

Jack

Focus on Defending at home rather than Expeditionary forces supporting overthrow attempts at Foreign Governments. Then wondering why Terry Taliban is getting a council house in London because 15 years ago you went in and destroyed his country and got him to start fighting you back.

Doing same **** every decade and wondering why outcome is the same should give you a clue.

Terry Taliban gets the nice house while the collection plate gets handed around so those who served in Uniform can get their bodies (sans limbs) or their (screwed up) minds looked after by Charity that everybody says os very worthy.

And the stupidity will continue.

When did they cease to attract a small additional pay, and when did they cease to be awarded please.

Deliverable?
 

Whilst all the comments to this very interesting thread are of high value, important and thought provoking, maybe it simply comes down to the follow on question along the lines of is there a will at the top, and, if so, is the will deliverable?

If the will is there, there may be realistic and pragmatic constraint such that it proves to be undeliverable? If the will is not there....you have a role to play yourself perhaps through the Chain of Command or externally such that the will becomes the reality?

How about families quarters owned and managed by the services rather than some self serving profiteering organisation?

Here is a starter for 10.....

Accept not all officers want promotion, they just enjoy the job and hate the nonsense politics, stupid additional duties and games

Get rid of pointless tick chasing i.e. Corruption or Bias DLE, yearly swim test, CCS first aid, workstation risk assessment etc.

A JPA-type system that works

Abolish management and promote leadership

Stop meddling in pensions/allowances

The right to a private life i.e. you dont need to know my wife's name or how old my children are.

Cease the infuriating nonsense of "you are in the military" as an excuse to treat people badly, speak to them poorly and mess them around on a whim.

Abolish HRG for booking anything. It costs a fortune and is more expensive per booking.

Hold people of ALL ranks responsible for their action/decisions

Prevent senior officers involved in large procurements from serving on boards of those companies involved

The abolition of RRP(P) removal on PVR. It is immoral and punitive and causes those that should leave to stay and become toxic

OASC to look at medical issues for those commissioning from the ranks differently, rather than treat as a new joiner. I.e. If you are a SNCO signed to 55 yo, the fact you have had post-natal depression/bad back/poor eyesight/PTSD ETC is irrelevant, you are signed to 55 already anyway.

Flying pay for ALL aircrew

RRP for certified and chartered engineers

Beards and side burns allowed

SFA that is fit for purpose

SLA that is fit for purpose

Independent body that has the power and means to deal with all Service issues such as SLA without hot water for 2 months. This body should have public oversight and publish its trends.

Politicians constitutionally barred from interfering in military matters

Service chiefs granted autonomy to speak to the media with no consequences for their position.

Stopping of silly D&I mandatory you-will-conform-to-the-groupthink training. It has never changed anyones values or mindset, its just a waste of a day.

Service chefs

Real food - Not crappy, over-processed, cheap and poisonous franken-foods

Your own OJAR/SJAR is completed by 1RO with input from subordinates

IT system that works

IT contractors that are available 24/7 from anywhere on the planet.

Removal of golden handcuff contractors - £1,000 to move a Intranet tap 10ft... Really?!?

Abolishment of Travel Cells - They sit on bookings for weeks and then the cost soars or flights are no longer available

No requirement to pay hotel accommodation and claim back. Yes you CAN claim an advance of 90% of costs, which is not always convenient, possible or available. Give HRG something to do for their money, book the hotel and HRG can claim it from the MoD. We had an instance whereby 18 yo LACs were put in hotels for 2 months. They assumed the hotels were paid for until after a few weeks they were presented with a bill for £1,800. They were paid half of that as a monthly wage. Absolutely abhorrent.

That is all I can think of for now.....

"Politicians constitutionally barred from interfering in military matters"

REALLY? As a sometime resident of S America I can tell you this is a very very very bad idea

Lots of interesting points there, but the Services are not above the laws of the land - which also raises the point of (lack of) fair representation of the Services.

Totally agree on the HRG point; luckily in my last MOD assignement, I was authorised to use my GPC for booking and paying for all work-related travel and had a dispensation not to use HRG. Got some cracking deals as a result. And saved the Authroity moeny by using Skyscanner etc.

Rant mode to "ON"...

1. Train personnel in Acquisition properly. I had a 1-day course and the "luxury" of a 5-day handover before becoming a Platform RM. Encourage more people to complete in-service degrees / masters and the Cranfield MDA to build knowledge - but then, crucially, employ them properly!
2. Incentivise personnel to gain and retain these SQEP skills. My RM tour was not seen as being "crunchy"; there was little/no incentive for me to apply the skills and knowledge I learnt in the next rank. Indeed, SO1s and above would sometimes arrive in the Cap area with zero experience and only a fleeting understanding of acquisition, mostly based on the utter boll*cks taught at ACSC. They merely wanted a "tick", to make a mark and not f*ck up. Many epitomised Boyd's "be-ers"; one of the things that made it easier for me to leave was the arrogance and short-sightedness of these people - proven by the fact they would invariably employ rank not knowledge to "win" arguments. Much of what I warned of has occurred. As usual, the shysters have achieved promotional MSD and the Front Line are left to pick up the pieces. In both Acquisition and Airworthiness we need to nurture SQEP that use these areas as career pillars and move in/out in successive ranks. Only then will we get informed outcomes in both areas….
3. Abolish the "Conspiracy of Optimism". Don't fear "failing fast". We tie too many PADR/OJAR KPIs to "success" in projects. It incentivises bad behaviours and sliding thresholds. Therefore, many are reluctant to pass on "bad news" and we haemorrhage cash trying to make some arbitrary date to meet an OF5s OJAR. Accept that we do OT&E for a reason and fund it - it's there to find out where the bodies have been buried, hence why PMs always seem keen to cut it out to "save money". I witnessed a number of cases where T&E crews were pressured to make the "right" call by the CoC and other interested parties, at the expense of ensuring the suitability of the kit for the Front Line.
4. Stop the apparent QQ monopoly on everything. Sort out the relationships between the FL, QQ, Dstl and broader industry. QQ are too monolithic to cope well with the small stuff (hence why they farm a lot of it out and merely slap their letter head, and a whole load of mark up, on other people's work….). Get them to do the "big stuff" and incentivise them to stay there - they have a lot of very talented people and world-class facilities but often they were simply unaffordable. PMs need to realise that the LTPA is not "free"…..Revitalise NiteWorks, but ensure it has the intellectual sea-room to answer the questions they are posed more broadly.
5. Apply TEPIDOIL properly. Don't just focus on the Equipment IOC….
6. Accept that we need to travel on business. With an increasing number of US-sourced platforms (P8, CH-47, F-35, C-17, E-7, RJ, C130 etc…) deal with the fact that we will have to pay to attend meetings. The 2* doesn't need , or want, to sign off on every meeting. Attending a one-day meeting in the US is not "a jolly". Stop making it a complete time-burgle to request, book then reclaim travel. It's one of the joys of running my own company - a complete 1 week visit to the US including flights, HOTAC and Hire Car booked in 10 minutes on Expedia, then an hour or so sifting receipts when I get back (with no inevitable JPA audit to follow….). Being treated as a freeloading gadabout by "the system" is unfair and definitely not retention positive.
7. A revolving door between full time and reservist service. Many of us outside still work in the sector, and could bring experience and knowledge to bear. What we won't do is be exploited or ripped off due to the pension implications of doing so, and we don't have the time to jump through the multitude of hoops (IRT, FT, etc) that seem to be expected. The VeRR scheme is great concept - expand it!

Ooooh, that rant has made me feel much better!!

Spot On. Just look at the RAF's current manned offensive air fleet and ask yourself "why" ?

edited to add

Trump also appeared to double down on his recent proposal to ban defense contractors from hiring former Pentagon acquisition officials, criticizing the industry's revolving door.

"The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies," Trump said on Fox. "You know, they make a deal like that and two or three years later, you see them working for these big companies that made the deal... they should have a lifetime restriction."

have at that !!

Excellent points here - and I am pleased that I could make you feel much better.

I thought FP (or RRP as you mentioned earlier) was paid to all aircrew: pilots, navs, WSOps, ATs, AIAs and scopies.

Surely you don't mean RPAS Operators? ;)

(Good luck keeping Ministers' sticky fingers out of the till and their 2000-mile screwdriver at bay! Especially as we have an uncodified constitution).

If the Military don't report to Politicians who DO they report to?

The Monarch? Last time that happened Charles I took a morning walk in Westminster and didn't come back for lunch.............

Perhaps The LEADER - well we all know how that works out...............

Themselves - again - we know where that ends...

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not advocating the military can start wars on their own, more that the politicians set the Ends and the military are left to work out the Ways and Means without meddling from halfwit, uneducated under-qualified politicians with their latest pet project. Let the military do what they know how to do, fight wars and provide security.