The Ministry of Defence has disclosed the latest data on the medical deployability of UK Regular Forces, providing a breakdown by service and deployability status.
Responding to a parliamentary question from Mark Francois, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, Al Carns, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence, outlined the figures as of 1 October 2024.
The table below summarises the Medical Deployability Standards across the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force (RAF):
| Service | Medically Fully Deployable (MFD) | Medically Limited Deployable (MLD) | Medically Not Deployable (MND) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royal Navy | 22,838 | 2,363 | 2,922 | 28,123 |
| Army | 55,005 | 9,456 | 6,879 | 71,340 |
| RAF | 21,717 | 2,531 | 3,721 | 27,969 |
| Total | 99,560 | 14,350 | 13,522 | 127,432 |
The figures highlight that nearly 100,000 personnel across the Armed Forces are classed as Medically Fully Deployable (MFD), capable of serving without medical restrictions. A further 14,350 personnel are classified as Medically Limited Deployable (MLD), meaning they can serve with certain constraints, while 13,522 personnel are Medically Not Deployable (MND) and unable to be deployed in their current medical condition.
Key Observations:
- The Army constitutes the largest proportion of deployable personnel, reflecting its size and operational role, with 55,005 fully deployable individuals.
- The RAF has the highest proportion of personnel classified as Medically Not Deployable (MND) relative to its size, with 3,721 individuals in this category.
- The Royal Navy shows the lowest proportion of MND personnel, with 2,922 recorded.
This data offers an insight into the health and operational readiness of the UK’s Regular Armed Forces and underscores the importance of ongoing healthcare and support systems to ensure that as many personnel as possible remain fully deployable.
So less than 100,000 deployable service personnel! That is a bit disconcerting.
Of course, service personnel, being human beings first and for most, can get sick and suffer training injuries same as any one else. The numbers just underline how small our forces are. When on earth will our politicians wake up and smell the coffee.
Deterrence needs conventional forces as well as nuclear capabilities and conventional forces need mass as well as technology. Deterrence is different to actually fighting a war as it is all about image and impressing our potential enemies. Our people are amongst the best in the world but there are far too few of them which means that our deterrent effect is deeply flawed, increasing the risks that we will have to fight – and that doesn’t bare thinking about!
Cheers CR
MLD is still deployable, just with limitations on occupation or location. Eg a downgraded soldier with an NFCI might be non deployable to a cold climate, buy can deploy to a hot climate. A soldier who is MLD because of hearing might be limited to rear echelon duties etc.
CR, this report is of interest but it does not tell the full story of how many personnel are available for operational deployment.
To take the army – some 30% of those 71,340 regular officers and soldiers are in non-deployable units/posts. Also there will be personnel in the Field Force not able to deploy for reasons other than medical downgrading – eg. personnel on resettlement training or resettlement leave, personnel under 18, possibly personnel on a long career course, etc.
If this was a private sector business the company would be on the verge of bankruptcy. 16,000 army personnel not fully deployable? That’s 23 per cent and we are 4000 poeple short to begin with.What a state we are in.
As I said above. MLD doesn’t mean not productive.
Geoff, it is not the end of the world. 30% of our army officers and soldiers are not in deployable (ie Field Force) units.
But being under-strength by 4,000 people is a problem. Is it 4,000 though? Army Establishment is 73,000 and we have 71,340 shown on the table, so army is 1,660 short by my arithmetic.
Over 20% of personnel of limited use! What an inept shower of shit the MOD is!
…or the army itself?
It’s all branches not just the army.
Not sure how it is the MoDs fault people are injured ? Instead try blaming politicians of all parties who have cut funding, reduced manning and provided Crapita as the recruiting solution which has failed dismally.
New Me. Not the MoDs fault that some service personnel are downgraded, invariably due to injury or illness.
So the Army has 16000 sickies of various sick chit levels! Surely no other organisation would allow nearly 22% of its workforce to malinger while fully paid for extended periods of time? Next we will have the reserves demanding a full pension and taking it to court….oh wait!
Such a high level of unfit for deployment illustrates a culture of malingering. Those in the employ of the services are health screened, young and fit. A change to the terms of engagement, statutory sick pay for those not reporting fit would vastly reduce the number of malingerers and bring the military into line with a number of private sector employers. It’s a scandal bordering on corruption, the high level of sickness across the services. civil and public servants – no commercial organisation would stand this inefficiency.
This was exactly the kind of thing the new PM touched on when he spoken about public servants ‘being comfortable with managed decline’
Me, myself. 58 years old and not a day of sick since 2015. Why am I working my arse off to support public service skivers?
Scott, your charge of malingering without a shred of evidence is unwarranted. I doubt you have served or you will know that a lot of injury occurs in punishing and demanding training, especially in the army. Being young and fit does not, for example, prevent a Para breaking his ankle in a parachute landing.
No commercial organisation is like the armed services by putting their people through the same type of activity including very, very hard physical outdoor trainng in harsh climate and conditions and active service, so your comparison is nonsensical.
Exactly!!!!
Plus this insane idea that someone who is MLD or MND doesn’t work!!!! I know a few MND soldiers who’ve had to go for surgery, yet still rock up to work and keep cogs turning behind the scenes.
Heaven forbid that a physically demanding job with regular exposure to whatever the climate can throw at you causes injuries.
Some people on here need to get a grip, or at least familiarise themselves with what constitutes a downgrade ffs.
Your comment aimed at me? In saying that the armed forces, unlike commercial organisations, put their people through hard physical training in harsh climate and conditions, and also send them on active service (ie. to war)…I meant that this can lead to injuries and illnesses that lead to downgrading. Hence the %age of those downgraded in HM Forces will be higher than those in civvy street.
This comment system that George has implemented is so unworkable. Nobody knows who is responding to whom, you can’t track replies, you can’t even reply after 4 replies… just… argh.