"May questions UK’s top tier military status.."

daily tails of utter inept management and bizarre process really do make the MoD look effective. It's the internal mechanisms which defeat it.

A lot of the poor management has sprung up since their desegregation and the creation of the myriad of trusts and supporting entities, they are so complex that they require way too much support from people who don't seem to fully appreciate exactly what it is they need to be doing or how to achieve it. Enormous amounts of time and money and lost simply in the creation of support and contracts between the trusts and their supporting entities.

There is quite simply a huge degree of over complexity, duplication and incoherence built into it's new organisational construct., with very ineffectual overseeing bodies.
.
Are we talking about the NHS or MoD, I'm not sure.
 
That is assuming the US and Europe don't break up in the near future.
Europe, being just bit of geography can't break up, the EU might reassess it's format if some other members start to leave. As for the USA I'm interested where you think the splits would occur and how the splitters would win the following 'War of Reuninfication'.
 
This is the latest public statement on the matter: Armed Forces Minister speech at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference

Armed Forces Minister speech at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference

21st Century Division – Innovative and Integrated

21st Century Division – Information Dominant

21st Century Division - Internationally Responsive
Finally, the 21st century Division must be international by design.
This to me clearly signals we have already decided we are not going to maintain a single high intensity armoured division in the long run.
 
It was an example I made up on the hoof - although I’m sure it has real life parallels.

I think the military suffers from its desire to adhere to doctrine - bizzarely since nobody reads it. The problem is that we would probably like our objective criteria to be the same for everything - so you could laminate it and put it in a PAM. The reality is that every Operations would be bespoke and the objective measurements likely iterative.
If you look up the OECD criteria they are indeed always the same, but they're pretty broad brush. It's how they are interpreted in all stages of the project cycle that makes them so useful.

You could have a group of criteria for going to war; a group of performance metrics to measure progress and a group to measure end state.

On the last, if the last 17 years or so have taught us anything, it's the need for a credible and funded exit strategy BEFORE we start deploying troops etc.
 
Mrs MB works for the NHS, she is a Child Health Visitor, Band 4.

She has 3 levels of management to go through to get a holiday application approved. Her department recently underwent consultation with the aim of streamlining it, 6 months it took - net result they now have 3 more Band 7 managers!

The NHS is a self licking lollipop and is comprehensively over-staffed in the wrong areas.

An entirely independent cross-party (or ideally non-political) team have to go digging deep down in the NHS - they could save the £20bn in the drop of a hat.

IMHO.

MB
I am employed in NHS Facilities.

Back in my past (well, 5 years ago) I worked in a different NHS Trust to my current Trust. They have 2 general hospitals about 20 miles apart.

The Facilities department underwent a streamlining process to reduce costs at the time there was a director, deputy director, 2 x Band 8 managers (1 for each site), 6 x band 5 managers (3 for each site, Domestic, Porters, Catering), 16 x Band 3 Supervisors (8 each site, 4 Domestic, 2 Porter, 2 catering) and 8 x band 2 Team leaders (4 each site, Domestic). It worked, it wasn’t as heavy as it looks and the chain of command was clear.

The suggestion was to have facilities supervisors covering all 3 departments and reduce management by merging departments, seems reasonable.

After 11 months the new structure was announced: Porters and catering had been declared “special cases” and isolated from the bulk of the reshuffle. Director, deputy director, 2 x Band 8 managers (1 for each site) remained unchanged, new bit: 2 x Band 7 assistant managers (1 each site, also running porters), 3 x band 6 Technical managers (Domestic, Porters, Catering, across both sites), 4 x band 5 Senior Zone Managers (2 each site, Domestic, catering), 16 x Band 4 Zone Managers (8 each site, 4 domestic, 2 porter 2 catering) 16 x band 3 Zone Supervisors (8 each site, 4 Domestic, 2 Porter, 2 catering) 8 x band 2 Team leaders (4 each site, Domestic). It caused chaos as the band 7’s insisted in micromanaging the band 3’s in all departments bypassing the chain of command completely and countering instructions from the band 4, 5 and 6 managers which caused unnecessary friction within the departments.

As a direct result of this I sought out employment elsewhere, I’m happy here as the chain of command is short, sharp and direct, however, there is a constant need for additional offices and every spare area is being converted into offices for various new management and admin staff.

Sorry it’s a bit of a ramble but it demonstrates why there needs to be an independent review of the NHS management structures.
 
If counting commissioned vessels is the only criterion then maybe but that actually puts NK at No.1 due to the hundreds of plastic patrol baths it has.
Real ability puts the UK 4th.
Same goes for the airforce at 5th & slated to be 4th once the F-35 arrives in any number.
Throw in Trident & claiming we're anything but First Tier is disingenuous at best.
No it's honest, you may be 4th but the first three are so far ahead of you that it's no contest. You're also a bit selective in not mentioning the army. A first rate military power cannot just swan around the oceans and bomb people it needs boots on the ground capable of fighting high intensity warfare. Now where do we stand. Counting MBTs were 54th, even if you assume our supertanks are worth three of the enemy that would make us about 30th. The British army is currently exactly where is was in the 1920s, a [neo-]colonial police force with pretensions, except in the 1920's the number of boots to world population was about 4 times better than it is now so as Iraq and Afghanistan proved we can't even carry out that role in more than a medium size city or small county.
 
Why? Another statement by Williamson also talks of the ability to regenerate a second Division as required.
I was commenting on what you posted, if you'd posted the other statement I might have made a different comment. I fail to see however how we can have two divisions capable of high intensity warfare with the limited number of MBTs we own. I suspect this second division is an LoS security force to free up our friends to fight in the front line, unless of course he does think Ajax is a tank.
 
What capability? You have a small highly trained Army. An almost non existent Airforce and Navy. I have already stated that you folks are very professional but their ain’t enough of you.
Others on here who FAR better informed than myself:
1. UK are taking over air policing for Iceland, as I understand it our MPA may be based there as well, at your request
2. UK took lead on Estonia with it's longer logistical chain, you took Poland
3. UK, at your request contribute over Syria and boots on the ground as well, at your request
4. UK are building up Middle East (Navy) at your request
5. UK have built up Int capabilities to help gather and process product, at your request
6. UK have demonstrated free of movement in the South China Sea, who asked for that?
7. UK contribute to US SF
8. UK increased contribution to Afghanistan, who asked for that?

I suggest we both know that the US have probably pushed UK forces to carry taskings in several other areas, especially where it involves boots and hostile ground.

PS
And how is Diego Garcia going for you?
 
So she is happy to risk another row with her backbenchers? I suspect that both the new CDS and CGS will put her straight in terms of the risks that she is running.
They can try.

Forgive me for farting in Church, but the Army is finding out how she treated the police service.

Good Luck.
 
I am employed in NHS Facilities.

Back in my past (well, 5 years ago) I worked in a different NHS Trust to my current Trust. They have 2 general hospitals about 20 miles apart.

The Facilities department underwent a streamlining process to reduce costs at the time there was a director, deputy director, 2 x Band 8 managers (1 for each site), 6 x band 5 managers (3 for each site, Domestic, Porters, Catering), 16 x Band 3 Supervisors (8 each site, 4 Domestic, 2 Porter, 2 catering) and 8 x band 2 Team leaders (4 each site, Domestic). It worked, it wasn’t as heavy as it looks and the chain of command was clear.

The suggestion was to have facilities supervisors covering all 3 departments and reduce management by merging departments, seems reasonable.

After 11 months the new structure was announced: Porters and catering had been declared “special cases” and isolated from the bulk of the reshuffle. Director, deputy director, 2 x Band 8 managers (1 for each site) remained unchanged, new bit: 2 x Band 7 assistant managers (1 each site, also running porters), 3 x band 6 Technical managers (Domestic, Porters, Catering, across both sites), 4 x band 5 Senior Zone Managers (2 each site, Domestic, catering), 16 x Band 4 Zone Managers (8 each site, 4 domestic, 2 porter 2 catering) 16 x band 3 Zone Supervisors (8 each site, 4 Domestic, 2 Porter, 2 catering) 8 x band 2 Team leaders (4 each site, Domestic). It caused chaos as the band 7’s insisted in micromanaging the band 3’s in all departments bypassing the chain of command completely and countering instructions from the band 4, 5 and 6 managers which caused unnecessary friction within the departments.

As a direct result of this I sought out employment elsewhere, I’m happy here as the chain of command is short, sharp and direct, however, there is a constant need for additional offices and every spare area is being converted into offices for various new management and admin staff.

Sorry it’s a bit of a ramble but it demonstrates why there needs to be an independent review of the NHS management structures.
There's a LOT in the NHS that needs some love. 'Love' in the sense of a good boot.

I'm interested as to why porters were declared special cases. It rings bells.

A friend whom I've mentioned before on here used to run the outpatients physio departments at my local NHS trust. She had a porter who would come in once a year with 'back problems'. He would freely declare to her that there was nothing wrong with him - he just felt that five weeks' paid leave a year wasn't enough and he'd decided that he was entitled to six.

The point was that the system was set up such that she wasn't allowed to 'refuse treatment'.

I've written that in quotes because there wasn't any to be given. But nor could she call this guy out within the system. He knew that she couldn't call him a liar, so could be as blatant as he liked with her. The burden was then placed on her to cover for him and it made her complicit, which she had a lot of issues with (she's basically a very honest sort).

Per many other posts on here, there's a LOT needs sorting out before we throw more money at the NHS.

The posts on the relatively low-threshold fixes to people's lifestyles that would make huge differences are spot-on.

I'm blessed through my other half with having private cover. I've had to have a few things done in recent years (hernia repair, some necessary maxillofacial work) and it's been seamless. I also jog through the campus of my local hospital fairly regularly - it's my route to the local lanes and hills.

The difference is not just in the efficiency. It's in the patients. The private hospital is clean, the areas outside deserted. The NHS hospital's outside areas are littered (a word that works in so many ways...) with people in wheelchairs, many with limbs missing, puffing away. Let's just say that the limb losses aren't the results of severe trauma events.

But we're not to judge. It makes me very angry that there have been efforts made to have obesity declared an illness, not a result (in a huge number if not the majority of cases) of lifestyle choices.

According to the Obesity Health Alliance — a coalition of over 40 leading charities, medical royal colleges and campaign groups working together to share their expertise and support the national government in tackling the complex issue of overweight and obesity in the UK — the financial burden to the NHS amounts to £5.1bn a year. That figure is based on NHS data from 2005/6 and, with rates of obesity increasing, it is expected to increase by an extra £2.5bn per year by 2035. The cost to wider society amounts to tens of billions of pounds annually.

Walking and cycling for just 10 minutes a day can contribute towards the 150 minutes of physical activity for adults per week which are recommended by the UK’s senior medical officers. And, as well as obesity, physical activity helps to prevent and manage quite a number of other chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, dementia and several forms of cancer. It is also linked to overall health benefits, such as reduced injury risk, improved quality of life, increased productivity and reduced absenteeism at work.

Obesity is also a major cause of cancer.

...that's just obesity. Add in smoking, add in alcohol and substance abuse - as well as the incidents caused by the latter in particular. Call it £10bn right there in 'funding' for the NHS which we could gain by forcing people to get a grip.

Yet still we're not allowed to judge.


Apologies for the thread drift.
 
Last edited:
Could you deploy a brigade sized force on your own within a two week time frame anywhere in the world? Without borrowing from Uncle Sugar these days? Or better yet a division??



When you can do this, let me know.
Looking at Op Granby (Gulf 1), the RAF had 4 Sqns of C130, 1 of VC10 and 1 dual role Tristar. It also had 2 tanker Sqns of Victors. This transport capacity was enough to put over 25k troops into theatre with 13k tons of freight.

Nowadays we have 2 C130 Sqns replaced by 2 A400M Sqns instead. VC10/Tristar has been replaced by 2 Sqn of Voyager - although acknowledging they are part of the tanker capability. On the plus side, there are 8 x C17 we didn't have before.


So could we deploy a Brigade inside 2 weeks given our AT looks about the same or slightly more capable - I reckon on paper yes. This would have to be after the usual question is asked of the politicians - Yes we can but what of our existing commitments do you want us to stop.

I'm hedging an inf Bde, not a mixed BG with armour. You didn't state that and you can do your own poxy logs estimate, or specify the task better.

As to a Division, no, I doubt it very much. But is that the be all and end all (and to go back OT, the acknowledged qualification for Tier 1 military status?) - I refer you to Voltaire:

"God is not on the side of the Big Battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best."
 
I was commenting on what you posted, if you'd posted the other statement I might have made a different comment. I fail to see however how we can have two divisions capable of high intensity warfare with the limited number of MBTs we own. I suspect this second division is an LoS security force to free up our friends to fight in the front line, unless of course he does think Ajax is a tank.
Wasn't a test just a continuation of conversation.

Headline conclusions of the Modernising Defence programme are due to be published sometime in the next three or four weeks so everyone is getting their position statements in the public domain.

Another theory doing the rounds is the threat from Russia is not heavy metal and is more likely to be SF incursions in the manner of Crimea so a fast, flexible but punchy response is all that is required. Can you hear "Strike"? This would also see the Army reduce to 50,000 with the Orbat revolving around SF, then Para/Cdo then the lesser mortals.

One thing is for sure and that is money is tight and all that new super duper technology (drones, cyber and AI etc) is expensive.
 
All this back and forthery about brigades and divsions ducks the question - do we have a strategic need for a heavy metal division or even a ditto brigade, on short notice to deploy and capable of self-sustainment for 6-12 months? I'd submit the answer is clearly 'no' - I sense not only no pending strategic need, but also an utter lack of political or popular enthusiasm for yet another oozing-sore conflict like Telic or Herrick. Don't be blinded by the sympathy and affection fplk felt for the Service personnel involved in those conflicts - the great British public has firmly decided they were pointless and, in any case, lost (and, arguably, according to popular legend, illegal, at least in Iraq).

Short of an existential threat, it'll be a long time before it becomes acceptable to go stomping on to someone else's real estate unless it's for clearly defensive purposes - an Article 5 invocation, for example. Under those circumstances, it's kind of hard to justify spending a huge amount of time and money maintaining a full-fledged high readiness heavy metal capability, if you can't see likely circumstances where you'd want to deploy the specific effects that capability allows. Keep it on life support, probably in the Reserve and light pres so you don't have to rebuild from scratch if you need to and that's probably good enough.
 
All this back and forthery about brigades and divsions ducks the question - do we have a strategic need for a heavy metal division or even a ditto brigade, on short notice to deploy and capable of self-sustainment for 6-12 months? I'd submit the answer is clearly 'no' - I sense not only no pending strategic need, but also an utter lack of political or popular enthusiasm for yet another oozing-sore conflict like Telic or Herrick. Don't be blinded by the sympathy and affection fplk felt for the Service personnel involved in those conflicts - the great British public has firmly decided they were pointless and, in any case, lost (and, arguably, according to popular legend, illegal, at least in Iraq).

Short of an existential threat, it'll be a long time before it becomes acceptable to go stomping on to someone else's real estate unless it's for clearly defensive purposes - an Article 5 invocation, for example. Under those circumstances, it's kind of hard to justify spending a huge amount of time and money maintaining a full-fledged high readiness heavy metal capability, if you can't see likely circumstances where you'd want to deploy the specific effects that capability allows. Keep it on life support, probably in the Reserve and light pres so you don't have to rebuild from scratch if you need to and that's probably good enough.
Define ‘defensive purposes’. To many, that equates to ‘imminent threat of invasion’ whereas it can actually mean to need to go somewhere and do something heavily kinetic in order to persuade them to desist or leave us alone. That’s distinct from the vanity and posturing of such as Mr Blair and it is a relevant need and task.
 
They can try.

Forgive me for farting in Church, but the Army is finding out how she treated the police service.

Good Luck.
May was in a strong position as Home Secretary; as Prime Minister she is not. She cannot afford to make any more enemies, something which contrary to everything else she does she seems to excel at.
 
Define ‘defensive purposes’. To many, that equates to ‘imminent threat of invasion’ whereas it can actually mean to need to go somewhere and do something heavily kinetic in order to persuade them to desist or leave us alone. That’s distinct from the vanity and posturing of such as Mr Blair and it is a relevant need and task.
It might well be a relevant need and task, but I'd rather like - as a citizen and a taxpayer - to have it spelled out under which circumstances and in pursuit of which ends this sort of intervention capability would be required. I rather think it would be hard to come up with a convincing set of circumstances fpr our deployment of a heavy metal component, over a deployment ditto by a partner or ally, freeing us to do the light-blue and dark-blue stuff we're better suited and equipped to do.
 
All this back and forthery about brigades and divsions ducks the question - do we have a strategic need for a heavy metal division or even a ditto brigade, on short notice to deploy and capable of self-sustainment for 6-12 months? I'd submit the answer is clearly 'no' - I sense not only no pending strategic need, but also an utter lack of political or popular enthusiasm for yet another oozing-sore conflict like Telic or Herrick. Don't be blinded by the sympathy and affection fplk felt for the Service personnel involved in those conflicts - the great British public has firmly decided they were pointless and, in any case, lost (and, arguably, according to popular legend, illegal, at least in Iraq).

Short of an existential threat, it'll be a long time before it becomes acceptable to go stomping on to someone else's real estate unless it's for clearly defensive purposes - an Article 5 invocation, for example. Under those circumstances, it's kind of hard to justify spending a huge amount of time and money maintaining a full-fledged high readiness heavy metal capability, if you can't see likely circumstances where you'd want to deploy the specific effects that capability allows. Keep it on life support, probably in the Reserve and light pres so you don't have to rebuild from scratch if you need to and that's probably good enough.
The problem with that kind of reasoning is that it can be applied to just about every high end capability in the forces, especially in the Navy: CVF, T45, T26, SSN, SSBN, meteor, MPA, etc. Do we really NEED those? The moment you concede on armoured warfare every else is politically on the table and HMF will be gutted.
 
The problem with that kind of reasoning is that it can be applied to just about every high end capability in the forces, especially in the Navy: CVF, T45, T26, SSN, SSBN, meteor, MPA, etc. Do we really NEED those? The moment you concede on armoured warfare every else is politically on the table and HMF will be gutted.
I don't think that's the case - the strategic case for maritime and air power is considerably easier to make than for heavy metal. The political and electoral case, ditto, of course - especially as a lack of land power actually makes it highly unlikely we'll get dragged into any more losing ground wars. That's politically attractive.
 
Europe, being just bit of geography can't break up, the EU might reassess it's format if some other members start to leave. As for the USA I'm interested where you think the splits would occur and how the splitters would win the following 'War of Reuninfication'.
My thought process was about the trans Atlantic relationship, and how America and Europe are drifting away from one another.

If the US were to split, it would be interesting.

- The Washington Post

What most folks don’t understand is that we are very different inside our own country. These differences are real, and very noticeable.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Effendi Economics 20
4 The Intelligence Cell 18
dogmonkey The Intelligence Cell 9

Similar threads

Top