The Elephant in the Room

[marktigger]

The debate on the forum is good however time and time again the dreams of expansion come along.

More type 31
Buy SSK's
Keep the LPD
Buy new LHD's
Have Both the carriers
Keep the river I's

all great a bit of money can do all of this.........However what's the point if they will have to stay alongside because there is No one to man them. The Navy like the other services is struggling to recruit and more importantly retain personnel. Certain trade groups like engineers are particularly bad.
We can dream all we like of a much bigger fleet but if we can't man it its powerless.

[Repulse]

Whilst it would take time a growing navy is exactly what is needed to attract more recruits. Until then crew are going to be as much of a new ship design constraints/ drivers as money.

[james k]

This isn't going to help.
http://www.forces.net/news/anger-britis ... ise-delays

[Lord Jim]

It is a constant problem that politicians and especially the Treasury fail to see the big picture when it comes to defence. Everything is interconnected, so you cannot concentrate funding say on equipment and not do the same for personnel. Until this is realised, funding fro defence will never be anyway near what is needed to meet even limited aspirations.

[shark bait]

Very true, should the forces Magic up some money the first thing that needs fixing is the manning crisis.

Shouldn't consider expansion before we use properly the assets we already have .

[Aethulwulf]

Currently citizens of the Republic of Ireland may apply to join the British Army. They serve on the same terms of service as UK citizens and receive the same pay, allowances, compensation and pensions. People from Commonwealth countries can also join, if they have been resident in the UK for 5 years.

To solve manning issues in the services, why not extend this to allow people from any NATO country to apply to join (who can pass an English language test). I'm sure there would be many applicants from eastern Europe.

[NickC]

Think the crew costs is a mouse for extra ships listed compared to the MOD/RN elephant in the room for the current renewing the nuclear deterrent, budgeted at £41 billion.

Estimate is that manufacturing 4 Dreadnought Trident submarines is £31 billion including inflation plus a contingency of an additional £10 billion.

Then there is the baby elephant the F-35B which for the first 48 a/c including R&D a/c budgeted at only £9+ billion

[RetroSicotte]

Currently citizens of the Republic of Ireland may apply to join the British Army. They serve on the same terms of service as UK citizens and receive the same pay, allowances, compensation and pensions. People from Commonwealth countries can also join, if they have been resident in the UK for 5 years.

To solve manning issues in the services, why not extend this to allow people from any NATO country to apply to join (who can pass an English language test). I'm sure there would be many applicants from eastern Europe.

The "resident in the UK for 5 years" one confuses me. There's such a long history of "British and Commonwealth" forces that you have to think recruitment would be aided by Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and a greater influx of Fiji and Tongan recruits (who both have long histories with the UK)

Heck, not permitting Americans to happily join up is a very weird one. Sure the odds would be very low, but they're about as close as we can get to just having it happen when needed.

[downsizer]

FCO and Home Office decision, not an MoD one. They don’t want it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

To continue the topic raised:
The study by former Armed Forces minister Mark Francois, which was commissioned by Downing Street, says all three branches of the military are "running to stand still" as they struggle to replace the numbers leaving.

The report comes weeks after The Independent revealed how the latest armed forces personnel statistics had led to claims that a “flawed” Government austerity drive had left the Army facing a recruitment crisis.

In his report, Mr Francois confirmed that the Army faced the biggest problem, pointing out that it needs to recruit 10,000 people a year to maintain its strength, but only managed to attract 7,000 entrants last year.
- how's the TA getting on, from 19k to 30k, to plug the gap (intentionally created)?


The Filling the Ranks report states[further]: "The Royal Navy and the RAF are now running at around 10 per cent short of their annual recruitment target
- and they are using Reserves differently, so the impact of the shortfall is direct

[Lord Jim]

Another Elephant has appeared in the same room, according to the Defence Select Committee. In addition to finding £3Bn per year savings to fill the now confirmed hole in the 10 year equipment plan, the MoD needs to find an additional £9Bn in savings to be able to afford said plan. The fault mainly lies with the MoD for being over optimistic in its calculations, but the Defence Secretary seems to have grown a pair and is demanding more money from the Treasury to head off any additional cuts to either the equipment programme or existing forces. It will be interesting to see how things develop.

[rec]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-mps-told

Common sense solution if this is carried through

[Lord Jim]

Possibly, but it was also reported that as part of this "Mini" review to transfer of defence funding to departments other then the MoD to counter non traditional threats such as cyber could still impact on the ability of the MoD to deliver what it need not just what it wants. I think the Defence Budget needs to be more flexible than now. Currently the impression is given that the MoD and Treasury reach an agreement every five years and that the amount of money available for the next five years is set in stone. If costs increase the Treasury's answer is for the MoD to make savings know to all as cuts. This has to change, like happens in nearly every other departmental budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Full spectrum" is coming live... it has adorned various documents for as long as I have been following what is being issued with "policy" headlines:

"the committee pressed Sedwill to confirm whether he was proposing to cut MoD assets – such as two ships used for amphibious landings – and reduce the number of marines. Sedwill said only that “adjustments” would have to be made.
[...]

Sedwill told the committee his aim was not to cut the existing £56bn spent annually on security but rather to redistribute it across departments where necessary."

So, a little bit of give and take:
- take one full budget year's worth [of cost] out
- then nibble at that "new" money, to redistribute it

[benny14]

- then nibble at that "new" money, to redistribute it

More like... -100m from navy, -100m from army, -100m from airforce, +300m to cyber.

[R686]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... re-health/

Britain's defence spending has been falling for decades. Since the end of the Cold War, spending has fallen from 3.8 per cent of GDP, to just 2.2 per cent.

we are like you the nanny state

[rec]

There has been a fair amount of discussion around moving the cost of the Trident renewal i of the defence budget, as it used to be.
Would a more palatable option be to move the cost of the 9 Poseidon aircraft out and put it under Urgent operational requirement (increased Russian Submarine activity).

Along with the cost if the 5 type 31s and 3 Mars SSS (national shipbuilding strategy). Wouldn't that give more breathing space and avoid cuts?

[Lord Jim]

Following that train of thought, you could move the whole Army re-equipment programme into the UOR category and something might actually start to move.

[james k]

None of this makes particularly pleasant reading


http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/pl ... es-1048495

[Clive F]

Not sure if this is correct place but can someone advise me on the relative strengths ( ie how under strength / up to full compliment) of each regiment / unit or point me in the direction of that information? The reason for asking is with the talk of cuts in manpower, if for example RM's are at full strength/ over subscribed, but Paras are struggling to recruit it would be daft to cut RM's and merge into the Paras. Likewise other units.

[ArmChairCivvy]

or point me in the direction of that information?

This is not quite as granular, but at least fairly fresh, at the corps level:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... -17/60327/

I think that's the best angle anyway, as the regional affiliation has been fading and on the other hand the "critical skills" gap in billets is the "fact" that should be steering any transformation/ amalgamation/ consolidation... whatever you call it. Not just this Rgmnt is recruiting at less than the target level, hence A+B together will...

[Clive F]

Thanks for that, Do you know how the RM's and RAF regt doing?

[james k]

Yes, they do completely different jobs in a completely different way after carrying out completely different training under completely different management, leadership and funding. In addition their rivalry often spills over into hatred, contempt and sometimes violence.

Not sure if this is correct place but can someone advise me on the relative strengths ( ie how under strength / up to full compliment) of each regiment / unit or point me in the direction of that information? The reason for asking is with the talk of cuts in manpower, if for example RM's are at full strength/ over subscribed, but Paras are struggling to recruit it would be daft to cut RM's and merge into the Paras. Likewise other units.

[james k]

RM are doing pretty well, RAF a Regt are good for numbers but the inclusion of women is leading to some confusion and a possible reduction in standards (obviously it won't be called that). The RM won't take women yet but when they do are expecting some to transfer from the RM Band Service, who have already completed 15 weeks at Lympstone, the corps have decided that apart from separate toilets there will be no changes for women either in course content or living arrangements.

Thanks for that, Do you know how the RM's and RAF regt doing?

[Clive F]

So to cut numbers in RM/RAF is "stupid" when they are up to strength and the Army can not recruit sufficient to fill posts then. Well I wonder what they will do then!