UK military problems & policies

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

The cited post above is quite dated - it was from August 2008. After a recent encounter I was told the Army is finding recruitment far easier, so much so there are waiting lists and the ability to recruit has enabled units to get rid of those they no longer need. Secondly, there appear to be a waiting list for entry to parts of the RN; a friend's son has been waiting for two years and still no date in sight. I accept the 'waiting' maybe impacted by an expectation of further manpower reductions.

In my limited encounters with the Army the refrain is that Afghanistan is a positive factor in recruitment; I suspect it is retention that is affected far more, especially for those who are married, with children and a trade that will get a job outside.

[JMA]

JMA,

The cited post above is quite dated - it was from August 2008. After a recent encounter I was told the Army is finding recruitment far easier, so much so there are waiting lists and the ability to recruit has enabled units to get rid of those they no longer need. Secondly, there appear to be a waiting list for entry to parts of the RN; a friend's son has been waiting for two years and still no date in sight. I accept the 'waiting' maybe impacted by an expectation of further manpower reductions.

In my limited encounters with the Army the refrain is that Afghanistan is a positive factor in recruitment; I suspect it is retention that is affected far more, especially for those who are married, with children and a trade that will get a job outside.

Ok, lets keen the eyes on that trend then. I too have heard that the married members are also more likely to want to move on due to domestic pressure. I recently met a major who had left the service because the 6 months every two years 'tours' were getting to be a bit much. You go figure.

[William F. Owen]

In my limited encounters with the Army the refrain is that Afghanistan is a positive factor in recruitment; I suspect it is retention that is affected far more, especially for those who are married, with children and a trade that will get a job outside.

I would concur. The problem is retention. Guys join, "fight their war," and depart. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt.

Clearly A'Stan is not critical to the security of the UK, so the wife usually has a point to make, especially if the man that went is not quite the same man that came back, in some cases.

[baboon6]

JMA,

The cited post above is quite dated - it was from August 2008. After a recent encounter I was told the Army is finding recruitment far easier, so much so there are waiting lists and the ability to recruit has enabled units to get rid of those they no longer need. Secondly, there appear to be a waiting list for entry to parts of the RN; a friend's son has been waiting for two years and still no date in sight. I accept the 'waiting' maybe impacted by an expectation of further manpower reductions.

In my limited encounters with the Army the refrain is that Afghanistan is a positive factor in recruitment; I suspect it is retention that is affected far more, especially for those who are married, with children and a trade that will get a job outside.

The economic downturn may have also played a part in the upturn in recruitment in the last year or two.

[Red Rat]

Currently we are as near to full manning as we are ever likely to get. The problem is that full manning is not necessarily 'right' manning as current ops demand more of some trades (MOS) then others and it takes time to grow specialists, adjust manning structures etc.
Afghanistan is recruitment positive and the current economic downturn is retention positive. What we find difficult to quantify is how many joined us because of the downturn and are staying on purely because of the downturn. We expect that once the business sector picks up we will see a sharp uptake across the rank spectrum of people getting out.

Within the officer corps I have detected an increasing degree of cynicism and disillusionment with our senior leadership as a result of experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan (more so); an echoing of Coldstreamer's comments on toxic leadership. This may just be the jaundiced and cynical company that I keep - or it may point to an increasing number of career officers leaving in the future.

And of course the whispers of cutbacks (probable) and redundancies (wishful) have already started!

RR

[JMA]

Currently we are as near to full manning as we are ever likely to get. The problem is that full manning is not necessarily 'right' manning as current ops demand more of some trades (MOS) then others and it takes time to grow specialists, adjust manning structures etc.
Afghanistan is recruitment positive and the current economic downturn is retention positive. What we find difficult to quantify is how many joined us because of the downturn and are staying on purely because of the downturn. We expect that once the business sector picks up we will see a sharp uptake across the rank spectrum of people getting out.

Within the officer corps I have detected an increasing degree of cynicism and disillusionment with our senior leadership as a result of experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan (more so); an echoing of Coldstreamer's comments on toxic leadership. This may just be the jaundiced and cynical company that I keep - or it may point to an increasing number of career officers leaving in the future.

And of course the whispers of cutbacks (probable) and redundancies (wishful) have already started!

RR

Thanks for that. Of the specialists surely the training which takes months rather than years is not really that much of a problem? What % of these specialists need training which would last more than a year?

Then of course the liberal rotation system (6 months : 18 months) places a higher demand for such people. The problem to some extent at least is self inflicted?

I suppose there is little or no chance that the Brits would consider raising a Brigade specially for Afghan ops which can be disbanded once the war is over?

[JMA]

The economic downturn may have also played a part in the upturn in recruitment in the last year or two.

Here then is an opportunity to get a couple of thousand soldiers for a specially raised Afghan regiment or two?

[Red Rat]

KEY POINTS:

• The UK Government today, 18 October 2010, published Britain's National Security Strategy (NSS). Together with the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) it sets out the UK's strategic choices on how to ensure the security of the UK.

• The National Security Strategy and SDSR together provide direction for national security policy, capabilities and resources for the next 5 years. The NSS allows UK Government Departments to prioritise their resources according to the risks set out in the document published today.

• The NSS sets out two high-level objectives which will guide the UK's strategic approach overall:

- To ensure a secure and resilient UK by protecting its people, economy, infrastructure, territory and ways of life from all major risks that can affect it directly; and

- To shape a stable world, by acting to reduce the likelihood of risks affecting the UK or British interests overseas, and applying its instruments of power and influence to shape the global environment.

• The NSS decides the UK's priorities for action, and identifies 15 priority security risks to the UK. The following Tier 1 risks are judged to be the UK's highest priorities for UK national security:

- Terrorism
- Cyber attack
- Major natural hazards and accidents
- International Military Crisis

• Afghanistan will remain the UK's top priority while British troops are deployed there.

• The details of the capability and resource decisions, the 'ways' and 'means' of achieving the National Security priorities are in the SDSR which will be published on 19 Oct 10. The National Security Strategy has informed the policy, resource and capability choices that will be set out in the SDSR.

DETAIL:

Context and Foreign Policy Baseline

1. Through a globalised 'networked' world the risk picture is likely to become increasingly diverse with no single risk dominating. This means achieving security will become more complex.

2. The UK's ability to remain adaptable for the future will be essential, as will be the ability to identify risks and opportunities at the earliest possible stage and maintaining highly capable and flexible armed forces.

3. Through NATO, the EU and other alliances the UK will share its security needs and gain collective benefits. As a result, the UK faces no major state threat at present.

4. We will continue to play a major role in shaping the international architecture - reinforcing the UN, NATO, G20 and EU and building bilateral ties with rising economic powers such as China and India.

The National Interest and British Values

5. The National Security Strategy explains that the UK's national interest comprises its security, prosperity and freedom and that these are interconnected and mutually supportive.

6. National Security is about protecting the UK's people, including their rights and liberties.

7. Promoting civil liberties and upholding the rule of law are fundamental principles which underpin the UK's approach to national security.

8. Security and Liberty are complementary and mutually supportive. The UK needs security to protect the liberties it holds dear.

National Security Priorities (Risk Management – Tiers 1, 2 and 3)

9. For the first time, the UK Government has assessed and prioritised all the major national security risks that the UK faces to ensure that it has the right means to address them.

10. The 15 priority risks to UK national security, split into three tiers are:

Tier 1 Priorities (the most pressing risks to the UK over the next five years)

• Terrorism
• Cyber attack
• Major natural hazards and accidents
• International Military Crisis

Tier 2 Priorities (the next highest priorities)

• State-led Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) attacks
• Instability And Conflict Overseas
• Organised Crime
• Space security

Tier 3 Priorities (The next highest priorities after Tier 1 & 2)

• Conventional military attack on UK
• Significant increase in flows of terrorsits, organised criminals, illegal migrants etc across our border
• Energy Security and Resources
• Accidental Release Radioactive Material
• Article 5 - Attack by a State on another NATO or EU Member
• An attack on a UK overseas territory as the result of a sovereignty dispute or a wider regional conflict.
• Short to medium term disruption to international supplies of resources (for example, food, water) essential to the UK

Terrorism

11. The risk to the UK from terrorism continues to be one of the highest priority national security risks.

12. The UK has therefore decided to give a high priority to counter terrorism compared to other areas of national security.

Cyber Attack

13. Cyberspace is now vital for the UK's prosperity and way of life.

14. The rapid growth of cyberspace means that the UK must act now to ensure its cyber security.

15. Some states continue to try to gain advantage over the UK through hostile intelligence activity and cyber attack, and the UK must do all that it can to protect the valuable government and commercial information we possess.

Hazards and Accidents

16. Certain civil emergencies are among the most severe of all threats to UK national security.

17. In a more resource constrained environment, the UK will act in a more targeted way in the future, which means, among other things, focusing relatively more on the highest priority civil emergency risks;

18. The top three civil emergency risks to the UK for continued action to improve preparedness: (i) terrorist attacks using unconventional materials (ii) major tidal or coastal flooding; (iii) severe influenza pandemic.

International Military Crises and Instability

19. An international military crisis involving multiple states in a region which drew in the UK or its Allies would have a major impact on global stability.

20. The UK will continue to work internationally to address such risks before they develop, but must ensure that it is prepared to act should diplomatic solutions fail.

Alliance and Partnerships

21. The UK will intensify its bilateral defence and security relationships with a wide range of partners, working more effectively together to tackle threats and exploit opportunities where interests coincide.

22. The UK will be active in the multilateral organisations central to its national security: committed to a reformed UN Security Council, a robust and credible NATO, and an EU that uses its collective weight to promote shared interests and values.

Full details can be found at: UK Cabinet Office

[davidbfpo]

IISS has quickly published a viewpoint:

Like many such documents from NATO members over the past decade, it tries to set a framework for dealing with an 'age of uncertainty' – a world in which there is a wide range of possible threats to security and a lack of clarity about which might be the most serious....

Several points are noteworthy about this ranking: first, the threat from cyber attacks has been upgraded, in line with the remarks made by Iain Lobban, head of the government listening post GCHQ, at the IISS last week. Secondly, there is relatively little emphasis in the document on two elements which have tended to loom large in such threat assessments: nuclear proliferation and the dangers from fragile and failing states. Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons is included in a paragraph that also mentions organised crime, and is not mentioned again. Thirdly, by referring specifically to a military crisis 'between states', the strategy appears to downgrade the risks from the kind of regional instability that has prompted UK military action on several occasions since the mid-1990s.

This is a document explicitly predicated on the need to deal with a fiscal deficit, with defence cuts to be announced tomorrow.....

Link:http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-voices/?blogpost=69

[davidbfpo]

A scathing, indirect comment on the UK decision-making:

One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday....(much later)

Scrapping the Harriers will create a “capability gap” of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF enters service.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...arry-jets.html

Now to another London "think tank" RUSI:

The problem with it, as it presently exists, is that it is not really a strategy as such, but a methodology for a strategy. It does not make hard choices between real things - which is what strategists have to do. It creates all the right boxes and describes how we should fit them together - who should lead in this or that area, who else should be involved, and so on - but it doesn't put anything specific enough into the boxes.

(Near the end)But it is hard to avoid the feeling that the reason the story and the numbers are being kept apart is that they don't fit together as well as ministers and officials hoped they would.

Link:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...4CBC6D8637AB7/

Now my own viewpoint. The carrier aircraft "gap" has been clear for months and we must realise UK policy today is now far more dictated by public / state financial position. We have been through this before, notably with the East of Suez withdrawal, IIRC in 1968, after a "run" on the UK Pound.

This is "spin" and "smoke" creating a structure to show decisions are strategic and fit together. Remaining with the example of the two aircraft carriers, where do they fit in the priorities of the national security strategy?

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

This thread until today (30th April 2013) was entitled 'UK Army 2020' and was merged with a smaller thread on Sir David Richards 2010 speech (below). It was re-titled 'UK Defence Policy' (catch all) to enable wider use (ends).


On Monday General Sir David Richards, now the UK Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), gave the annual Colin Cramphorn Lecture, in London, organised by the "think tank" Policy Exchange and last year it was a General Petraeus.

Link to website, with very short bio:http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/eve...ent.cgi?id=278

The talk is on Youtube and included. It is just over an hour, with a lengthy Q&A session; most of the questions were by journalists and listen carefully for one. A couple of interesting points made, notably on cyber warfare, the purchase of two aircraft carriers and of course Afghanistan.

It was well reported, but many other more newsworthy items pushed it to the "inside pages".

[JMA]

On Monday General Sir David Richards, now the UK Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), gave the annual Colin Cramphorn Lecture, in London, organised by the "think tank" Policy Exchange and last year it was a General Petraeus.

Link to website, with very short bio:http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/eve...ent.cgi?id=278

The talk is on Youtube and included. It is just over an hour, with a lengthy Q&A session; most of the questions were by journalists and listen carefully for one. A couple of interesting points made, notably on cyber warfare, the purchase of two aircraft carriers and of course Afghanistan.

It was well reported, but many other more newsworthy items pushed it to the "inside pages".

Listened to it. Picked up nothing earth shattering did you?

[AdamG]

A critical assessment of the Army’s readiness for the next decade of military operations also found that its frontline units lack the right vehicles and precision weapons that will be needed.

The Army’s current shortcomings are highlighted in a report drawn up following an eight-month planning and assessment exercise named Agile Warrior.

The exercise was carried out by the Force Development and Training Command, a team of senior officers that attempts to prepare the Army for the operations it is likely to face in the years ahead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8548...n-warfare.html

[Fuchs]

Oh, 2nd half of 90's all over again.

I wonder why quantity isn't the primary concern for such environments because of the short lines of sight and fire.

[AdamG]

You'd think someone in Whitehall would have watched The Children of Men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQAJ1q4z4A

[Red Rat]

The British Army is currently a one trick pony. Resources are devoted almost entirely to training for Afghanistan leaving little to devote elsewhere.

Some of the TTPs from Afghanistan will be transferrable and there is still some residual knowledge from Basra (Iraq). However operations in large urban areas will prove challenging on many fronts. Use of PGMs will probably broadly follow Afghanistan TTPs, as will use of ISTAR. We have very limited main battle tank currency currently and developing expertise in use of armoured vehicles in urban environments could stretch our limited training resources.

Already (and rightly) general's efforts are looking ahead to the armed forces post-Afghanistan; structures and capabilities. Fuchs raises a good point in that the UK Army is envisaged as being so small (6 deployable brigades but not 6 at the same time) that the fact that mass has a quality all of its own and is essential for some operational environments appears to have been downplayed.

[JMA]

The British Army is currently a one trick pony. Resources are devoted almost entirely to training for Afghanistan leaving little to devote elsewhere.

Some of the TTPs from Afghanistan will be transferrable and there is still some residual knowledge from Basra (Iraq). However operations in large urban areas will prove challenging on many fronts. Use of PGMs will probably broadly follow Afghanistan TTPs, as will use of ISTAR. We have very limited main battle tank currency currently and developing expertise in use of armoured vehicles in urban environments could stretch our limited training resources.

Already (and rightly) general's efforts are looking ahead to the armed forces post-Afghanistan; structures and capabilities. Fuchs raises a good point in that the UK Army is envisaged as being so small (6 deployable brigades but not 6 at the same time) that the fact that mass has a quality all of its own and is essential for some operational environments appears to have been downplayed.

Sad too to note that with the air effort committed to Afghanistan the Brits were hard pressed to cobble together 12 aircraft for ops in Libya. Then there were of those that were grounded due to lack of spares and then a reported shortage of munitions. What a long way down for a nation which was once able to put hundreds of bombers into action on raids.

[Orlando1234]

Its takes a lot of resources to fight many fronts....

[SWJ Blog]

The Future of the British Army

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[gute]

The MOD came out with the official release of the UK Army restructuring called Army 2020. Below is a link to the brochure - it's worth a look:

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/gen...0_brochure.pdf