Forces not ready for missions - MoD

#1
Press Assoc. said:
- 39 minutes ago

The Armed Forces are unable to meet the Government's "readiness" target for mounting further military missions due to the continuing pressure of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence has warned.
(Advertisement)
Click Here !

In its latest assessment of its Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets set by the Government, the MoD also acknowledged that the forces were struggling to meet their designated manning levels.

Under the PSA, the MoD is supposed to be able to generate forces which can be "deployed, sustained and recovered at the scales of effort required to meet the Government's strategic objectives".

But in its Spring Performance Report, the MoD said that after the best part of a decade operating above military planning assumptions, this target could not be met.

"They (the Armed Forces) have been operating at or above the level of concurrent operations they are resourced and structured to deliver for seven of the last eight years, and for every year since 2002," it said.

"In such circumstances, the Armed Forces cannot simultaneously be ready for the full range of contingent operations provided for in planning assumptions."

While the MoD is supposed to ensure that at least 73% of units have no "serious or critical weaknesses" in their peacetime readiness levels, over the course of last year on average just 58% met the target.

In the final three months of the year, the proportion of units with no serious or critical weaknesses in the readiness levels fell to 53%, compared with 67% in the last quarter of 2006.

The MoD also warned that the forces' manning targets were likely only to be partly met. At the start of the year, according to the latest figures, the Navy was at 96.5% of its full strength - 1.5% below the "manning balance" target; the Army was at 96.4% - 1.6% below target; and the RAF was at 97.7% - 0.3% below target.

The report said that the forces were on course to achieving the PSA objective of securing success in the military tasks they undertake, although with "some risk".
Perhaps it will start to sink in now?
 

mysteron

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
Overstretch? No -it is not overstretch, it is a challenge...........

Unfortunately, the message will not sink in until we actually do not deploy when the Gobment decides it wants us to - because the resources are just not there. We are near that point - but not yet and only then will any realisation take place.
 
#3
What would happen should the Argies go for a rematch?

Stern email in a harsh font?
 
#4
Bravo_Bravo said:
What would happen should the Argies go for a rematch?

Stern email in a harsh font?
Well if the forces there couldn't stop a landing I doubt that much would be available for reinforcement. A landing on West Falkland by amphibious forces might be plausible if foolhardy but short of flying over it dropping bombs I don't see that much could be done to "drive them out". There wouldn't be the manpower to pull away from Stanley nor the reinforcements available in the UK to send out (let alone the means of getting them out there.) Subs would be very important.
 
#5
Its like the defense select comittee report opening lines: "The Armed forces will have some tough decisions to make...". Err...hang on. Calling them tough decisions makes it sound like which bus route to cut, not which service to leave with critical cash shortages and therefore shoddy equipment.

I suspect that the only way this government is going to listen is when we suffer a major defeat. I can see no way of showing the current lot that the armed forces are in a critical state without a significant loss of life. I pray daily that the Conservatives will get in in time and save us, although I'm not overly confident.

Also, where are they getting the manning figures from? Certain areas, like AMS, are horrendously undermanned even according to figures easily obtainable from army.mod.uk! Even the most damning articles in the press seem to follow only the mildest line of attack as much jucier statistics are avaliable to lay at the doorstep of No.10.
 
#6
We didn't have TLAMs in '82, we could just drop a few on Buenos Aires and I'm sure they'd retreat with their tails between their legs!
 
#7
EX_STAB said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
What would happen should the Argies go for a rematch?

Stern email in a harsh font?
Well if the forces there couldn't stop a landing I doubt that much would be available for reinforcement. A landing on West Falkland by amphibious forces might be plausible if foolhardy but short of flying over it dropping bombs I don't see that much could be done to "drive them out". There wouldn't be the manpower to pull away from Stanley nor the reinforcements available in the UK to send out (let alone the means of getting them out there.) Subs would be very important.
Would they really be that stupid to try for a seaborne invasion though after what happened to the Admiral Belgrano the last time around? Off the top of my head and having a quick look at wikipedia (yes I know it's not exactly the most reliable source ever, but like I said off the top of my head) they've got 5 C-130s so why not use them in an airborne attempt? Use 3 of them to drop close to 300 guys on RAF Mount Pleasant and the other two to 120 or so guys on Mare Harbour and dig in.

We've only got four planes at Mount Pleasant so you might be able to get some on the ground but if not once you're sitting on their home airfield with most of their supplies their effectiveness is going to be negated fairly quickly I would have thought. Then just use Mount Pleasant to swamp the place with reinforcements as quickly as possible - for that you can simply use commercial hired 747s rented beforehand for troops and converted 747 cargo planes or something like that to bring in vehicles and supplies, plus maybe some light artillery like 105s and helicopters. Then just sit back and laugh when the government realises that they've got bugger all besides the CCF to send. Like I said I've got no idea how actually feasible this is though.
 
#8
FNUSNU said:
We didn't have TLAMs in '82, we could just drop a few on Buenos Aires and I'm sure they'd retreat with their tails between their legs!
er, that didn't work in Iraq or kosovo, so i wouldn't expect it to work against argentina. They know we will struggle to put more thatn one sub in their area, and after a very small number of tlam launches, that sub will have to go home to get more.

Ski.
 
#10
If you think you are hard done by, take a look across the Channel and you will see what the methodical destruction of an armed force looks like.

Currently not a day goes by without a demonstration or an open letter by mayors or deputies or old comrades afraid of seeing their local unit or their former regiment disbanded; last one to speak was the mountain troops association after the announcement that the two mountain training centres in Barcelonnette and Briançon will close down.

And that's only just the beginning...
 
#11
Sadly nothing can be done now to stop the situation deteriorating further over the next 30-36 months. What they could do now is invest heavily so that the numbers may start to improve in 2011. Sadly, I don't believe that we will see any investment from this government and by 2010 it will probably be too late. By 2015 the Army will not be capable of very much at all.

There is no doubt in my mind that the army is broken but we still have a chance to fix it. By 2010 it may well be broken beyond repair.

With regard to the Falklands, I understand that the orders for the Garrison in the event of an Argentinian attempt to take the islands are that the islands will be held "at all costs" or words to that effect. This suggests to me that the corporation no longer believes we will be able to re-take the islands.
 
#12
fantassin said:
If you think you are hard done by, take a look across the Channel and you will see what the methodical destruction of an armed force looks like.

Currently not a day goes by without a demonstration or an open letter by mayors or deputies or old comrades afraid of seeing their local unit or their former regiment disbanded; last one to speak was the mountain troops association after the announcement that the two mountain training centres in Barcelonnette and Briançon will close down.
Didn't France just finally phase out conscription five or six years ago though? Are they really gutting the military or simply finally getting around to realigning it into a more professional and interventionist model?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#13
Realigning/gutting, depends if you are a political bean counter or a company commander with no fuel or ammo being demanded to hold a position!
 
#14
Brick said:
EX_STAB said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
What would happen should the Argies go for a rematch?

Stern email in a harsh font?
Well if the forces there couldn't stop a landing I doubt that much would be available for reinforcement. A landing on West Falkland by amphibious forces might be plausible if foolhardy but short of flying over it dropping bombs I don't see that much could be done to "drive them out". There wouldn't be the manpower to pull away from Stanley nor the reinforcements available in the UK to send out (let alone the means of getting them out there.) Subs would be very important.
Would they really be that stupid to try for a seaborne invasion though after what happened to the Admiral Belgrano the last time around? Off the top of my head and having a quick look at wikipedia (yes I know it's not exactly the most reliable source ever, but like I said off the top of my head) they've got 5 C-130s so why not use them in an airborne attempt? Use 3 of them to drop close to 300 guys on RAF Mount Pleasant and the other two to 120 or so guys on Mare Harbour and dig in.

We've only got four planes at Mount Pleasant so you might be able to get some on the ground but if not once you're sitting on their home airfield with most of their supplies their effectiveness is going to be negated fairly quickly I would have thought. Then just use Mount Pleasant to swamp the place with reinforcements as quickly as possible - for that you can simply use commercial hired 747s rented beforehand for troops and converted 747 cargo planes or something like that to bring in vehicles and supplies, plus maybe some light artillery like 105s and helicopters. Then just sit back and laugh when the government realises that they've got bugger all besides the CCF to send. Like I said I've got no idea how actually feasible this is though.
Could a 747 land on the Falklands?

Screw p1ssing around. Lob a nuke into BA, and be done with it. The Argies will whinge no matter what. Ohh, you used Bayonets, sunk a warship, nuked Buenos fcjuking Aires.

FFS the "families" of the ARA General Belgrano tried to sue for damages on the grounds war was never declared.... just as wellt they were told to wind it in, I´d hate to have seen the bill for Coventry, Antelope, Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor, Sir Tristam & Sir Lancelot.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#16
Plenty of time ahead to commit the mistakes we havent learnt from in history again!
 
#17
Brick said:
fantassin said:
If you think you are hard done by, take a look across the Channel and you will see what the methodical destruction of an armed force looks like.

Currently not a day goes by without a demonstration or an open letter by mayors or deputies or old comrades afraid of seeing their local unit or their former regiment disbanded; last one to speak was the mountain troops association after the announcement that the two mountain training centres in Barcelonnette and Briançon will close down.
Didn't France just finally phase out conscription five or six years ago though? Are they really gutting the military or simply finally getting around to realigning it into a more professional and interventionist model?
The last conscripts went by 2001. The Army went from 280,000 to 136,000 (in fact around 134,000 today).

The problem is that at the moment, after decades of delaying the admission into service of new equipment, they are all arriving at the same time and they is no money to service them !

-VBCI are arriving this year to replace AMX-10Ps
-Tiger have started replace-ing HOT ATGW equipped Gazelle (servicing one Tiger costs more than servicing 8 Gazelle !)
-Rafale have started to replace Mirage F1 and Jaguar (Jaguar have been withdrawn several years ago now)
-NH 90 to replace Super Frelon and Puma
-FREMM frigates to replace different types of frigates and aviso
-A400M to replace C-160 and C-130

The list goes on and on...

As far as being more interventionist, I don't see how we could do more with what we have; here is a quick outlook: currently the French armed forces are present in Afghanistan, Chad, the Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, a number of African countries (Gabon, Senegal, CAR, Ivory Coast, Djibouti), French overseas possessions (Tahiti, la Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Mayotte...) plus taking part in internal operations (security of train stations, airports...)...

Unless something is done to give the armed forces a shot in the arm, the prospect is very grim. Still, more and more people are noticing the sorry state the armed forces are in but not much is done.

So, basically, consider yourself lucky because at the moment, in Europe, you are the best trained, best funded and best equipped army.
 
#18
fantassin said:
Still, more and more people are noticing the sorry state the armed forces are in...........
Not the MoD though, at least not in the TELEGRAPH version of the story which starts:

"......the Ministry of Defence admitted it was running at well below strength and could not meet its Government-set targets as a result of the continuing pressure of operations in the war against terror."

And finishes:
"An MoD spokesman said the figures were not significantly worse than in recent reports."
 
#19
Argentina lacks amphibious assets so cannot mount a seaborne invasion....
 

Top