Latest figures show Army at full strength

The latest figures published by the Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) wing of the MoD show that the improvement in manning levels, which began in the late 2008, has been maintained and that the Army has actually been operating at full strength over the last quarter.

The MoD reports that the (markedly) reduced intake requirement reflects the fact that the Army is currently fully manned and can therefore cut back on new entrants.

The continued drop in the number of those leaving is also an encouraging sign as it implies that the Army is retaining more of its experienced personnel.

That the country is in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s may also be influencing the situation.

The issue for the immediate future is of course whether the Army will be permitted to continue to operate at the 102,000 mark. Defence Secretary Liam Fox has already hinted that the Strategic Defence Review is going to hit military spending hard; he's quoted as saying that the Goverment will act "ruthlessly and without sentiment" in finding savings in the defence budget. Indeed it's already been rumoured that even Britain's elite 23 SAS Regiment is in line to be culled.

Liam Fox is hoping to play the magician: although he will be overseeing radical reductions (15% is the current consensus) in military expenditure, he also insists that eventually Britain's security would end up "stronger".

The UK is not alone in seeking significant cuts in defence expenditure: across Europe governments have started to slash their military procurement projects. One way that Dr Fox may seek to square the circle of delivering more with less is through closer co-operation within Europe. Integrated procurement programmes, shared hardware, split operational responsibilities - indeed European Military Union itself - may start to look like attractive options to a Coalition desparate to make ends meet. God help us.

MoD: Latest UK Armed Forces manning figures released

Wounded receive quality care but resources at their max

Last Wednesday the National Audit Office published its report on its investigation into "Treating injury and illness arising on military operations".

The main findings were:

• Clinical treatment and rehabilitation of seriously wounded personnel are highly effective and rated by the military.
• The high quality of care for the seriously injured is demonstrated by the number of "unexpected survivors".
• Medical capacity at military hospitals in the UK and in Afghan has been sufficient to deal with casualties to date but it is close to its limit.
• Reported rates of disease and minor injury in Afghanistan have almost doubled from 4% to 7%.
• Personnel at risk of developing mental health conditions on operations receive appropriate support but there are some weaknesses in follow-up procedures.

Some figures published in the report:

• Between October 2001 and October 2009, 522 UK military personnel were seriously injured on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Since 2006 personnel on operations have attended medical facilities 125,000 times for minor injury and illness, with a further 1,700 times for mental health conditions.
• Some 6,900 people have been evacuated back to the UK from Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 for serious injuries and a range of other medical conditions.
• The estimated the cost of medical care provided as a result of military operations stood at £71 million in 2008-09.

That the treatment for the seriously wounded is both highly effective and of a high quality is, as the head of the NAO himself said, really good news. The worrying thing is that military hospitals seem now to be full.

The current surge strategy with its large-scale offensives against the Taliban (of which Operation Moshtarak is the first) is regretfully going to lead to higher casualties.

The situation is exacerbated by the intense pressure under which UK troops are fighting. Figures released by the MoD show that 46 per cent of all Army units are now in breach of the "harmony guidelines" (leave between combat tours) with the number of soldiers thought to have been affected by the breach estimated at 10,000. The problem of overstretch is further worsened by troop shortages and soldiers who are unfit for front line duty. Virtually every infantry regiment is under-strength by as much as 10 per cent or 70 soldiers and there are around 10,000, servicemen and women who cannot serve in combat zones for medical reasons.


The prognosis is not good for a medical service already running at capacity.

What is even more worrying is that this comes at a time when the Armed Forces budget is about to be hammered yet again. The government cannot depend on Help For Heroes to bail it out; perhaps the bankers could be encouraged to donate some of their bonuses.

NAO: Ministry of Defence: Treating injury and illness arising on military operations
InThe News: MoD feels strain of Afghan wounded
The Telegraph: Overstretch pushes British troops to the brink

MoD puts a contract out with QinetiQ

The MoD and the British Armed Forces have grown used to the concept of outsourcing.

Since 1983, when the MoD introduced its competitive procurement policy, competitive tendering for equipment and the contracting-out of support services to the private sector have not only become accepted practice but have become the de facto rule. Contracted-out services provided by private companies soon came to include such areas as catering, security guarding, training, IT, property maintenance, engineering, laundry and cleaning.

Things moved up a notch in 1990s when the MoD embaced the Thatcherite Private Finance Initiative (PFI) doctrine which was then being promulgated across Whitehall. When Tony came to power in 1997, PFI was re-launched, in Alastair Campbell Newspeak, as Public Private Partnerships - which had a nice, nulabour sound to it. The idea behind this was that private capital and private sector companies would finance and operate infrastructure that previously had been publicly funded and managed. Private companies would claw back their investment over time on a kind of lease basis. For example, the Matrix consortium were to build, manage and run the new £12billion tri-Service Training Academy at St Athan and would then charge the MoD fees for each student sent there on a course.... simples.

Moving on quickly to 2010 and we find that things have taken a quantum leap forward in the privatization stakes. Qinetiq, one of the MoD's favourite private sector companies - sorry, partners - is now sending its employees out to Afghanistan to operate the British military's UAVs. As Qinetiq puts it: "Unmanned air systems (UAS) including unmanned air vehicles (UAVS) are becoming increasingly important enablers in the fields of surveillance, security and defence. QinetiQ provides a total service for both civil and military UAS operations.... QinetiQ delivers a true end-to-end UAS service".

While the use of mercenaries was not uncommon in the barbaric past, for a civilised country in the 21st century to be employing civilians to fight its wars for it, and to kill its enemies (directly or indirectedly), is unacceptable and must be challenged on ethical grounds.

In its panic to cut costs, the MoD has started to contract-out the waging of its wars to the cheapest bidder with the decision to pull a trigger becoming part of a commercial contract.

The use of contract killers belongs in the murky world of the Mafia and should stay there.

The Times: Outsourced QinetiQ staff operate drones in Afghanistan

More troops? Don't hold your breath

In reply to the direct question from visiting Defence Secretary Ainsworth "What is your top desire from right here at the chalkface (sic) - what would you have more of today?", Staff Sergeant Kim Hughes of 11 Regiment EOD replied: "more troops on the ground".

The apparently surprised Defence Secretary asked: "People?". Staff Sgt Hughes replied: "Absolutely, more troops." He went on: "If you give us more troops, we can form a counter-IED taskforce to train ground troops better." And consequently reduce injuries and save lives.

That British forces in Afghanistan are stretched and that ISAF numbers need to be increased has been shouted by frontline soldiers into the ears of politicians for months. But little has so far been forthcoming. Ainsworth is flogging a dead horse when he says that we've got to get our European allies to do their share; they clearly have no intention of honouring their NATO commitments.

Today former CGS General Sir Richard Dannatt has accused Gordon Brown of refusing the military's requests for major troop reinforcement. The General says that sInce the beginning of the year the Army has been advising that 2,000 extra troops need to be sent out to Afghanistan but this advice has been repeatedly ignored. Gordon Brown, however, has denied the General's claims - now, whose word would you believe?

Newly-appointed CGS General Sir David Richards has also backed calls for significant reinforcements in Afghanistan to allow hard-pressed coalition forces to dominate the ground more and reverse the spread of Taliban influence. He told the Sunday Telegraph more troops would allow the coalition to 'start winning the psychological battle' for the support of ordinary Afghans.

Let's hope that Ainsworth and Brown will heed the advice of Kim Hughes and David Richards and actually do something about it.

AOL: Hero soldier asks for more troops
BBC: PM 'refused extra Afghan troops'

Now there's a shortage of helicopter pilots

For a long time the shortage of serviceable helicopters has been one of the major concerns for British Forces in Afghanistan. Now it seems that a bad situation is being made worse by the lack of sufficient pilots to fly the helicopters they have got.

The reported 10% shortfall not only means that existing pilots are being over-stretched - deployed for longer and having to fly more missions - it may also soon mean that operations are compromised and the delivery of supplies delayed.

Defence Management: RAF helicopter pilot shortage

There's Fit and there's Army Fit (2)

MoD figures show that almost 4,000 troops are currently considered to be too unfit to be deployed on military operations. Although that's only 5% of the number of troops available to be deployed, it is still almost the equivalent of the total number of troops currently serving in Iraq and getting near to half the UK forces in Afghanistan.
The Army currently collates quarterly figures only for its deployable elements, rather than for its total trained strength. This provides snapshot figures of Personnel Unable to Deploy (PUD), though many of these will be able to undertake non-deployed duties.

The following table provides the figures for 2008 of the number of personnel recorded as unable to deploy for medical reasons.

The MoD is in the process of introducing a new and more accurate data-capture system, which will enable it to report validated, comparable data on a tri-service basis.

In the US at least 20,000 soldiers are unable to serve in the war zones because they are recuperating from long-term or minor injuries, including an increasing number suffering from stress fractures and other ailments caused by carrying too much weight in combat, according to Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the US Army's vice chief of staff.

They Work For You: Armed Forces Manpower
ArmyFit.MOD
MoD: Get fit with the Army's new fitness guide
Baltimore Sun: Number of 'non-deployable' injured soldiers is increasing

Army strength continues to decline

Although technological advances are radically improving the effectiveness of each individual soldier, the number of men on the ground remains vital to overall operational success.

The latest manning figures published today, however, show that the total strength of the British Army has reduced from 112,750 in April 2004 to 104,000 today. Four and a half years ago the Army had 8.5% (8,750) more personnel than it does today; it had 1% more (1,090) 6 months ago.

The number of recruits joining the Army has shown a reduction on the position 6 months ago whilst the number of those leaving has increased. Unfortunately these latest figures reverse the trends of the previous 12 months.

The latest figures also show that the Army is top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough indians: 1,000 too many officers and 4,400 too few other ranks.

Because over all three services the manning position is not so bad, the MoD is naturally putting a positive gloss on things. But the poor figures for the Army are a cause for concern, especially as the operational demands being placed on the Army show no sign of decreasing. It is also disappointing that the recent recruitment and retention drives seem to be having little impact.

Link> MoD: Latest Armed Forces manning figures released
Link> MoD DASA: TSP01 - UK Regular Forces Strengths and Changes
Link> The Telegraph: British Army has too many officers and not enough rank-and-file soldiers

Defence Committee report on Recruiting and Retaining Armed Forces personnel

The House of Commons Defence Committee has published its report on Recruiting and Retaining Armed Forces personnel. The report contained few surprises - well-known concerns were re-iterated and in the main the MoD was encouraged to expand on and improve their exisiting initiatives. The Committee found:

• There are serious skill shortages in certain trades and these “pinch points” continue to increase. These trades should be targeted in recruitment campaigns.
• The Armed Forces are overstretched given the resources currently available. The Committee found that the MoD was being complacent and that there is likely to be a “serious weakness in the future capability of the Armed Forces”.
• Failure to meet Harmony Guides is having a negative impact on retention. The current level of operations continues to put Service personnel and their families under considerable strain – need for greater stability and more advance warning of deployments.
• The MoD could do more to raise the general public’s perceptions of the Armed Forces and to counter negative media coverage. The suggestions emanating from the National Recognition Study should be implemented. Engaging with civilian society is “central to ensuring the future success of the Armed Forces”.
• The good work the MoD has been doing working with schools should be expanded particularly with regard to school visits, outreach and promotion of cadet forces. The school recruitment programme needs to be reviewed and further education incentives should be offered to improve recruitment.
• The “recruiting environment” needs to adapt to the changes in the socio-economic environment - the targeting of ethnic minorities, women, older people and EU migrants and the provision of more flexible career structures together with embracing the challenges of diversity (here we go again!) to ensure the “long term credibility and legitimacy” of the Armed Forces.
• More information is wanted on the success or otherwise of the “One Army Recruiting” strategy (integrated Regular and Territorial Army recruiting).
• Initial training programmes need to be reviewed to ensure fewer recruits drop out and that more pass - i.e. standards need to be lowered.
• The improvements the MoD has already made in the operational welfare package need to be expanded. The valuable work carried out by the voluntary sector needs to be better coordinated and given coherence. MoD needs to develop a welfare package that responds to the unique circumstances of Volunteer and Regular Reservists.
• The £5billion (I thought it was £8billion) planned refurbishment and upgrading of service accommodation needs to be pushed forward. The standard of maintenance repairs and level of customer service continues to fall below expectations – a customer-centric approach needed.
• The overall basic pay package does not appear to be a major cause of Armed Forces personnel leaving the Services. Financial Retention Incentives may be expedient in the short-term but may divert investment away from addressing the underlying causes of worsening retention.
• Formalizing the Military Covenant would be counter-productive as it would become a political instrument rather than an instrument to protect the interests of men and women in our Armed Forces. As such, it would divert attention from what is important: ensuring Armed Forces personnel receive what they are entitled to.
• The MoD should consider more constructively the possible benefits which may be gained from an independent Armed Forces Federation.

Interestingly at the top of list of conclusions and recommendations is:
"The use of web fora provide us with an opportunity to hear the experiences of a wide range of current and former Service personnel and their families. We value this interaction. We welcome the Minister’s support for our ability to communicate freely with the Service community. However, this is the second time we have had concerns that the MoD has attempted to undermine a web forum that we have hosted. We look to the MoD to demonstrate its support for our interaction with the Service community by actively promoting web fora we set up for future inquiries." This doesn't sound very politically sensitive of the MoD.

Link> Defence Committee
Link> Defence Committee Report: Recruiting and retaining Armed Forces personnel
Link> The Guardian: Pressure on armed forces unprecedented, say MPs
Link> The Independent: Constant tours of duty leading to exodus of officers
Link> Whitehall Pages: MoD responds to House of Commons Defence Committee

Pay rise for everyone in the Armed Forces - AFPRB implemented in full

All servicemen and women will see their basic pay go up by 2.6% and X-Factor pay will increase by 1% (from 13 to 14 per cent), Defence Secretary Des Browne announced today. These are the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces' Pay Review Body which the Government has accepted and will implement in full from 1 April 2008.

The increase will raise a private’s starting salary from £15,677 to £16,227. This still compares miserably with a police constable's starting salary which, at £21009, is 30% higher than that of a squaddie. Oh and a trainee firefighter gets £20,396 (26% higher).

Anyway, lets hope the MoD's new payroll system will be able to handle the increases.

Link> Mod: Pay rise for everyone in the Armed Forces

Loss of trained personnel means less training for new recruits

"Nearly 1,000 new army recruits face having their combat training cut by half so that they can be rushed to the battlefields of Afghanistan." So says today's Times. The newspaper claims that British infantry battalions are experiencing 15% manpower shortages, 3,600 men in total. Up until now the Army has been able to make up the infantry shortfall by transfers from other regiments but this will no longer surfice. Instead it is being proposed that infantry training programmes could be reduced from 28 to 14 weeks. Senior officers are worried that young soldiers will be sent into the frontline without the skills and experience necessary to fight an enemy as capable as the Taliban and that troops with abridged training may come to represent 60% of the fighting strength of infantry battalions serving in Afghanistan.
The MoD PR Division reckons "we’re taking action in terms of the manning challenges" and will be able to "fast track" recruits through an "accelerated training" programme without compromising the highest standards expected from the British Army.

What all this highlights is the growing sense of alarm being felt about the manpower crisis in the Armed Forces and it is the loss of experienced, trained personnel which causes most concern. This of course brings up all the issues about low pay, poor accommodation, overstretch, pressures on service families, squeezed military budgets etc - all of which are contributing to the increasing number of guys marching out the door.

The Government should be working towards staunching this outward flow of experienced personnel rather than plugging the gaps in the ranks with undertrained, unprepared and therefore more vulnerable, rookies. That or cut back on the commitments that it has foisted on the Armed Services.

It's good to hear that recruitment levels are more or less on target and that morale among new recruits remains high - see BBC report below.

Link> The Times: Half-trained troops to fight the Taleban
Link> MoD :Ainsworth: Defence training project on track
Link> BBC: Training for war in 28 weeks

Now MPs warn of 'overstretch'

The Defence Select Committee in its annual review has warned that the pressures brought about by increased military commitments are resulting in the Armed Forces finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the demands placed upon them and that this has been going on for seven of the last eight years.

Well, nothing new here then: the MPs are simply endorsing an already widely held view.
Their main points are:

• The high level of Britain's military commitments around the world has resulted in insufficient recovery and retraining periods being provided between operational tours of duty. Instead of the two years troops should expect, some units are getting little more than one. Not only that but it has been reported elsewhere that for some, mainly officers, the tours themselves are being extended beyond the six months. [The MoD is now understood to be considering following the US example and formally extending the tours of duty to up to 12 months.] Not only is this bad for morale and encouraging increasing numbers of experienced personnel to quit the forces early, the lack of adequate retraining is also undermining proficiency in new weapon systems.
• Massive cost overruns and delays on many capital projects are putting huge pressures on the MoD's already stretched budgets. The spiralling expenditure on ambitious weapons projects (Type 45 destroyers, Astute subs, Trident, CVF aircraft carriers, Eurofighter) is putting the screws on the money that's available for tactical equipment needed on the frontline (helicopters, radios, protected vehicles).
• There continue to be shortages within some specialist groups in all three Armed Services - the medical corps and bomb disposal units are reported as being seriously undermanned.
• Only 50% of Britain's armed forces are be free of "serious or critical weaknesses" at any one time; the target is 73% target.
• The MoD is failing to meet its recruitment targets.

The last decade has shown that the Government has continued to dump more and more commitments on Britain's Armed Forces while at the same time not increasing the resources needed to meet them.

Link> The Times: Troops march out of army careers
Link> The Mail: MPs warn armed forces are at breaking point
Link> The Guardian: MPs warn of spending cuts
Link> The Guardian : Ainsworth Rejects Claims Of Crisis
Link> BBC: Former troops discuss pressure claim