UK Defence Force General discussion

H

Hone C

Active Member
Musashi_kenshin said:
That was published over six years ago, and even then it contained a lot of "don't know" or "women may...." The report also said that increased training and awareness could mitigate perception issues.
Click to expand...
There have been similar reports commissioned since; the 2016 review, the USMC 2015 Study, etc.
Don't know/requires more research was the conclusion in 2 of the 21 factors in the quoted report.

Musashi_kenshin said:
Generally speaking a lot of the arguments against having women in front-line roles that could be taken from that report were no doubt used in the past about permitting openly gay, ethnic minority, etc people in.
Click to expand...
Any evidence of this? The British military has a long tradition of employing troops in combat roles from non-British, Christian/atheist, Caucasian backgrounds, and indeed continues to do so, notably the Brigade of Gurkhas.

Musashi_kenshin said:
In my mind the main issue is morbidity. However, that could be down to more relaxed selection criteria for non-combat roles. I would also ask how thorough the assessment was, because it's also known that women tend to suffer from fewer ailments than men in other areas - e.g. man-flu being discovered as being real and women being more resistant to certain bugs and viruses. Did the assessment just look at injuries or also how often male and female service personnel were available for duty for medical reasons overall? Flu isn't an injury, but it is likely to make you unfit for service.
Click to expand...
Read the report. It states that evidence from recent operations shows a 15-20% higher rate of Disease Non Battle Injury (DNBI), as well as a two fold rate of muscular skeletal injuries.


Musashi_kenshin said:
Without accusing you of saying this, it is important to remember that any fall in minimum standards for recruitment is down to male recruits not being as fit as they used to be. It's not because they've been lowered to let women get in.
Click to expand...

The new Physical Employment Standards are tied to WGCC. Specifically to reduce the incidence of Muscular-Skeletal Injuries.

Chronic undermanning across the line infantry and the decision to outsource recruiting to Capita certainly hasn't helped.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Hone C said:
..

Chronic undermanning across the line infantry and the decision to outsource recruiting to Capita certainly hasn't helped.
Click to expand...
I worked for Crapita for a while. The only job I've done where customers intervened to protect staff from management. We used to get bulletins on what our senior management were saying & doing from our customers, e.g. saying that X was late because of mistakes by staff when the customers knew it was because it had not been given the contractually required level of resources. I can't tell you how they knew, but some customer staff had the good sense to drink in pubs near our Oxford offices. ;)

Local management were OK, though. When I quit my boss anxiously pulled me into his office & asked if I had a job to go to. He was very relieved when I said yes. He feared that I was so pissed off I'd quit without one.

One of the founders once threw away a stack of papers on someone's desk because they looked untidy. Just delivered, while their recipient was out on a customer site. From another customer, & essential stuff. Wouldn't listen to people who tried to tell him what the papers were, just got shouty. Someone retrieved 'em from the bin as soon as he'd left, of course. Another director told us it was in our interests to keep the share price high, as a defence against takeovers, & pay rises would depress the shares. Didn't mention that his pay was linked to the share price.

My experience was long ago, but when a company culture is that toxic it can take a very long time to change - if ever. And I've not told the worst.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
swerve said:
I worked for Crapita for a while. The only job I've done where customers intervened to protect staff from management. We used to get bulletins on what our senior management were saying & doing from our customers, e.g. saying that X was late because of mistakes by staff when the customers knew it was because it had not been given the contractually required level of resources. I can't tell you how they knew, but some customer staff had the good sense to drink in pubs near our Oxford offices. ;)

Local management were OK, though. When I quit my boss anxiously pulled me into his office & asked if I had a job to go to. He was very relieved when I said yes. He feared that I was so pissed off I'd quit without one.

One of the founders once threw away a stack of papers on someone's desk because they looked untidy. Just delivered, while their recipient was out on a customer site. From another customer, & essential stuff. Wouldn't listen to people who tried to tell him what the papers were, just got shouty. Someone retrieved 'em from the bin as soon as he'd left, of course. Another director told us it was in our interests to keep the share price high, as a defence against takeovers, & pay rises would depress the shares. Didn't mention that his pay was linked to the share price.

My experience was long ago, but when a company culture is that toxic it can take a very long time to change - if ever. And I've not told the worst.
Click to expand...
Sounds utterly grim.

TBH, outsourcing recruiting always struck me as a bad idea- my experience many years ago was that when the recruiting staff were active service, they took care to discourage the casual and inform the interested.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Army cut by 3500 from current strength, which is already below establishment. Warrior upgrade abandoned. Will remain in service until replaced by Boxer. Doesn't say so, but that implies an increase in Boxer production or a cut in numbers of AFVs. 148 Challenge II to be upgraded: rest to be retired. Older Chinooks to be retired. Watchkeeper (one of those really annoying "We'll buy a foreign design but change it so much it's really a new UK-only system, & very, very expensive" things) to be kept & upgraded. Improved GBAD. Longer-range missiles for MLRS.

Typhoon T1* & Hawk T1 to be retired by 2025, C-130 by 2023 & BAe 146 by 2022. More UK weapons to be integrated on F-35. AESA for Typhoon. E-3 retired this year & replaced by three E-7 (no mention of this being a cut in planned capability).

Type 83 AAW destroyer to start replacing T45 in late 2030s. Multi-role support ships with roles including platforms for littoral strike by early 2030s. Type 32 "designed to protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups".

*While the Spanish upgrade theirs with T2 & T3 equipment. Maybe they could pick up some ex-RAF ones & do the same to them to get a few more years out of them, replacing F-18s.
 
Last edited:
O

overlander

Member
swerve said:
Army cut by 3500 from current strength, which is already below establishment. Warrior upgrade abandoned. Will remain in service until replaced by Boxer. Doesn't say so, but that implies an increase in Boxer production or a cut in numbers of AFVs. 148 Challenge II to be upgraded: rest to be retired. Older Chinooks to be retired. Watchkeeper (one of those really annoying "We'll buy a foreign design but change it so much it's really a new UK-only system, & very, very expensive" things) to be kept & upgraded. Improved GBAD. Longer-range missiles for MLRS.

Typhoon T1* & Hawk T1 to be retired by 2025, C-130 by 2023 & BAe 146 by 2022. More UK weapons to be integrated on F-35. AESA for Typhoon. E-3 retired this year & replaced by three E-7 (no mention of this being a cut in planned capability).

Type 83 AAW destroyer to start replacing T45 in late 2030s. Multi-role support ships with roles including platforms for littoral strike by early 2030s. Type 32 "designed to protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups".

*While the Spanish upgrade theirs with T2 & T3 equipment. Maybe they could pick up some ex-RAF ones & do the same to them to get a few more years out of them, replacing F-18s.
Click to expand...
Is this the massive increase in defence expenditure announced by the p.m. ? , little strange increase in my opinión.
 
O

overlander

Member
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Two frigates to be scrapped early

Two of the oldest Type 23 Frigates are to be retired earlier than previous planned in order to fund other projects.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Also.

"The Navy will lose two specialist sub-hunting frigates, HMS Montrose and HMS Monmouth, as well as its 13 strong fleet of minehunters which are due to be replaced by drones.”
 
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
swerve said:
Army cut by 3500 from current strength, which is already below establishment. Warrior upgrade abandoned. Will remain in service until replaced by Boxer. Doesn't say so, but that implies an increase in Boxer production or a cut in numbers of AFVs. 148 Challenge II to be upgraded: rest to be retired. Older Chinooks to be retired. Watchkeeper (one of those really annoying "We'll buy a foreign design but change it so much it's really a new UK-only system, & very, very expensive" things) to be kept & upgraded. Improved GBAD. Longer-range missiles for MLRS.
Click to expand...
In some ways I think the Army got off lightly. Ben Wallace made a good point that as the Army has been under strength for a long time, the actual reduction in troop numbers is minimal. There's no point having a force that looks impressive on paper but isn't nearly at full strength.

The Army will be disappointed by the Warrior upgrade project being canned but they'll still have 148 upgraded Challenger 2s. That will tide them over until it's replaced, following which they may be able to argue for a larger buy.

More UK weapons to be integrated on F-35.
Click to expand...
That sounds like SPEAR 3, as the Block 4 upgrade was in doubt. Very important for the Royal Navy that goes ahead.

Type 83 AAW destroyer to start replacing T45 in late 2030s. Multi-role support ships with roles including platforms for littoral strike by early 2030s. Type 32 "designed to protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups".
Click to expand...
Good news that they're looking towards replacing the Type 45s. It ensures there will be a constant drum beat of orders for UK shipyards and could result in a more affordable order than when the Type 45s build started.

Also it's worth mentionging that I-SSGW was confirmed again. That would appear to remove any doubt as to whether it's fully funded or not.

Overall the Royal Navy did well, as expected. They've only lost two old/overworked frigates, and to compensate a handful will have their retirement deferred to allow for replacements to be built.

No more F-35s were ordered, but it seems there will be a follow-on order this decade.
 
O

overlander

Member
I,m not expert but maybe somebody could explain if this policy is finally towards less or more real improvements in the armed forces.
Anyway I don,t see the big boom increase in defence expenditure and capabilities as it was announced.
 
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
swerve said:
It says 'more' in addition to Spear, IIRC. I downloaded it, but not to this computer.
Click to expand...
That was my mistake, as I wasn't specific.

I meant that it sounds like Spear 3 is locked in, when previously there had been lots of statements about "aiming" for and "if possible", etc. I didn't mean to imply it was just Spear 3, but right now Spear is what I care about the most in terms of new weapons. Is there anything else the Navy really wants integrated that's not already included? I thought Meteor was already planned for.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #80
Seems that there is to be a replacement for the HMY Britannia, just announced by PM Johnson

Boris Johnson announces successor to Royal Yacht Britannia flagship (msn.com)

I like the idea in general, but also think that the best showcase for the UK are the Queen Elizabeth carriers, every ship in the RN can act as a trade envoy when visiting other nations. not so sure it has to have Royal connections. Whilst am am a pro-monarchist I feel the days of the Royal family are over once the Queen passes. I think the Harry and Meghan show has helped the republican movement a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top