The Ministry of Defence has confirmed it is working with industry to improve the ability to mobilise logistics personnel during times of crisis, following a parliamentary question on workforce preparedness.
In a written response, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the department had recently formalised cooperation with parts of the logistics sector as part of wider defence resilience planning.
The question, submitted by independent MP James McMurdock, asked what discussions had taken place with representatives of the logistics industry on enabling workforce mobilisation.
Responding on behalf of the department, Pollard said the work aligned with ongoing defence reform efforts. “Supporting the Strategic Defence Review and Defence Industrial Strategy’s intent of enhancing surge capacity and resilience through industry collaboration, the Ministry of Defence has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with nine companies within the logistic workforce sector,” he said.
He added that the agreement was intended to improve responsiveness in extreme circumstances. “The MoU explores ways of enabling rapid logistic workforce mobilisation within the Strategic Base, at times of national crisis.”
All this used to be routine and well drilled and expected. Now due to our poor foresight across the board in NATO over the last 20 years of “peace dividend” we are now re-learning these from scratch once more. Wonder how many ships we have available for STUFT and rail platforms and skilled railways and logistic people. I am aware there is a reserve railway Sqn, but over the next 24-36 months, there will need to be a full economic effort at preparing for probable future conflict in Europe across every aspect of industry. The concerns we have are the few “super bases” we have for our main platforms, certainly withing the RAF and RN. And the 80s cold war skills and drills of dispersing prior to war are now being dusted off over the last couple of years. Industry and production may need to be doing the same dispersing production and skilled workforces.
Yes, a Reserve Sqn and a regular STRE.
The idiots previously cut our remaining regular Sqn.
The parts of the defence estate linked to the rail network, unsure of the condition of all of it, but a spotter friend tells me MoD traffic has expanded of late.
Cheers mate, again an area which is not glamorous or shiny and pointy and therefore easily removed on the quiet, out of the public eye! Remember though mate amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics! 👍
A very interesting read is the procurement market engagement around the point replacement programme.. these are some serious ships they are talking about not just some ocean going RORO.. will proper ship to shore logistic capability via Mexeflote, ramps all around, crane, enhanced survivability, the ability to be fitted with self defence weapon systems and even an ice hardened hull for high north operations ( they are artic to Antarctica deployable)… all in all very very different from the points..
They are also exploring different operating models.. from civilian owned and operated to government owned and operated and everything in between….
Yes, that is what is needed.
Now for reality: how long do you think that plan will survive Rachel from Customer Complaints?
That will cost a lot of pennies more than in the yea fund.
SB, it is fair and reasonable to question the extent to which the Treasury – more like the defence budget – can support the utilisation of civilian resources to support the armed forces.
But this ‘Rachel from.Accounts’ epithet is wearing a bit thin. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allocates funds as directed by Government policy, it is not left to the Chancellor’s personal whims. The fact that the incumbent is a woman is of no relevance, we introduced adult female suffrage more than a century ago, so this line is a good way out of date.
It is just a snidey little tag thought up by some on the right of the Tory party and press, who thought it frightfully clever and amusing. It is neither. We need to rise above that kind of low-level, party political cr*p, surely?
Hmmme
I think you underestimate the power of the Treasury in these matters.
IRL it is the most powerful Office of State.
If Treasury wanted to fund the cash to get defence moving they don’t.
Just as you say Rachel From Accounts is an epithet so is the idea of value in MoD spending in Treasury circles. Whenever you mentioned it you’d get
Leander refits – or used to
Merlin fist blowout
Nimrod AEW
Nimrod MRA4
Etc etc
Treasury don’t believe in defence spending – I know I sat in the meetings. That won’t have changed and they are briefing Rachel who doesn’t have the competence or smarts to deal with the very clever people there.
I’m happy with a female chancellor just not her.
I think you over estimate the treasury. The state has been cut back to the bones by successive conservative governments, which if you try to get a doctor appointment or a dentist or look a the state of the roads is insanely clear. Meaning there isn’t much free money or stuff to cut to get it. People keep complaining about the welfare bill but majority of that goes to people with jobs that are guinely suffering, only a relatively small amount goes to people without and even smaller amount to people that don’t need it aka benefit fraud.
Tax revenue is also finite, made worse by the impact of the Brexit lies.
There is a choice, either significantly increase taxes which would hit the countries growth and people in their pockets or borrow more, which would hit the gilt markets and people’s pensions. Either scenario results in a government that is kicked out at the next election.
Reality is the electorate doesn’t want to pay for a defence boost, if it means them their selves paying more.
Unlike most of Europe the UK hasn’t been invaded in the last 80 years or suffered from impact of communism, so we feel safe. Russia and China are an abstract problem for most voters.
In what way is “Rachel from Accounts” sexist? I never read it that way, but perhaps my antenna are insufficently tuned. Snide, for sure. Wearing thin, perhaps, but I don’t see the sexism.
Blaming her after she has increased defence spending by 7.7% above inflation since getting into power, vs the last government that has slashed it.
The mainstream media are very sexist in their reporting against her, with most of it being outright lies, as keeps getting demonstrated by their doom reporting that then doesn’t happen. The economy is improving according to all the experts but the media reports she is killing it.
The bulk of our media whether print, online, TV or social media is owned by rich greedy bastard’s who are very right wing due to their desire to milk as much wealth from the economy as possible. The bulk of the population are too dim to realise what they read or watch under the guise of news is little better than propaganda.
I’ve given up on how profoundly bad our politicians are.. I can only say what I think is sensible.. I will let them ( be geostrategic incompetent idiots) and let myself be me ( a whinging old fart no one listens to )🤷
Such capabilities should be linked to foreign aid programs. Disaster relief response capabilities in peacetime. Military logistics support in exercises and periods of high tension and conflict.
One hull on standby in the Caribbean with engineering, water purification and power gen packages deployable ashore during Storm Season.
Well I think Ed Davey’s suggestion of re-introducing war bonds purely to fund increased defence spending would be one way. Not a big LibDem fan but this may be one way to fund defence purchases.
The issue would be that all that would happen is more stuff would be relabelled as defence to allow.
Until you stop that rot, nothing is going anywhere.
You raise a good point there: when, if ever, are we going to see how the defence budget is to be split between core defence (the 3.5%) and non-core (1.5%)?
This idea about civilian logistics support would fit in the non-core element. What else? Some of the extraneous bits Osborne stuck in the defence budget, like the cost of AWE, MOD civil service pensions, a chunk of the joint intelligence budget, and really the whole aid package to Ukraine. Then there are elements like the cadets which, while sponsored by the MOD, are voluntary organisations nor part of the military. And the MOD police gate guardians, are they part of core defence or a supernumerary civvy body?
If we set out that split against today’s defence budget, I doubt we would even be spending 2% of GDP on genuinr core defence. Which is probably why we will not see any such breakdown for years to come.
Estimates of core conventional spend are in the range 1.6 – 1.8% from a number of sources so it is no suprise that MoD are struggling.
It’s additional debt though which needs paid back. He makes it sound like free money which it isn’t.
It’s additional debt, but it’s for CAPEX expenditure, so it falls outside the public borrowing restrictions that the government have sensibly adopted. Borrowing for OPEX is what gets people worried, as that is a commitment to an ever increasing debt mountain. CAPEX is seen as an investment.
Very good point, war bonds would not add to our public borrowing ceiling. It looks a no-brainer of an idea. It would have to be heavily promoted as a patriotic duty, as in WW1 and WW2, or I fear that it might expose the gap between the public nodding along with a stronger defence and actually reaching into their pockets.
But it’s worth trying.
wwwgooglecom/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjGv4X1zaeSAxWMQEEAHUb3IX0QFnoECBwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk%2FNotice%2FAttachment%2Fcbc2aa60-5d2c-4259-b8dc-1c945ae606df&usg=AOvVaw0e4Z2Vk86gpBLR1wu2UTjz&opi=89978449
Is it this you are talking about? Not asking for much, are they?
They sound like the Cost a Fortune Class to me.
RFIs are often OTT rather than ITT. They can afford to ask as asking doesn’t cost extra and who knows if they might strike lucky.
That was T32 logic that set that project back to the drawing board.
They expected a T31 style pricing but they had made it so complicated that they got prices heading towards T26 back.
In any business you start with a sensible business case and work forwards or backwards from that. The other approach is bonkers and an anathema to anyone who has a clue how to get a contract into land.
If MRSS is a ‘strike frigate’ as the 1SL seemed to indicate, these will be taking over quite a lot of what the Bays were designed to do. It stands to reason they will be more expensive than the Points, and the MoD is making more of an option for owning and operating under the RFA, which would render the RFA very similar to the US Sealift Command if they also got given a hospital ship.
Then MRSS is starting to sound a lot like T32.
However is MRSS is going to be a Argus, Bay, Albion, T32 and Point Class all rolled into one a lot of them will be needed?
IRL I see it going to six T32/MRSS and some commercial+ load luggers on costs grounds.
A lot depends on how real things like containerised CAMM become and wether things can be simplified for a lean manned WO outfit to be on board with sealed for life systems that require no in service maintenance – the dream that never withstand the oggin and a good drenching in best seawater at the electrical connectors…..
What the 1SL seems to want MRSS-wise is an 8-1000t design with CIC as the main effector and maybe one CUC for heavier work. That’s what his comments of “More distributed, smaller with more autonomy, our landing force will match the commando capability we’re creating” indicate and hopefully we will be able to build at least 4 and hopefully the full 6 of those.
The obvious drop off in amphibious lift capacity would be made up by using these super-Points as RFAs to lift the actual Army ashore closer to the front lines with the extra defensive systems.
Can we please just scrap the MRSS plan before any real money is put into it.
Just get 3 LHD similar to the Juan Carlos, modernised with lower crew, and use the left over money for FSS and Type 31. Last year did a rough estimate and figured you can get 3 LHD, 1 FSS and 3 Type 31 for the price of 6 MRSS.
Juan Carlos carrys almost 2x the troop, 12.5 times the aircraft, 1.5 times the vehicles compared to the Albions which most MRSS projects are aiming for in amphibious ability. Juan Carlos was 500m USD 2018, Albion was 493m USD 2018.
MRSS will cost even more as they want it to be independent deployable so will need at least frigate armament on top of its amphibious ability.
Please can we crap the project that’s trying to do too much in one go
Is there a defined “times of national crisis”? or when they feel like it because they didn’t retain/aquire the relevant kit?
We hope that there’s consideration been given to the C-UAS protection and establishment of GBAD of the airspace above all the country’s logistics functions, load points, facilities, ships across the whole country. Reduce the risk of this network getting hobbled before it can function.
All of it means over a dozen sites on the MoD side alone.
More chance of hell freezing over with this government, but, you never know.
I know you couldn’t cover everything except with radar coverage but harbour ports, sub and airbases key army bases? You only have to look at what’s happening in Ukraine and would anyone want that in the UK?
No, course not.
But as we see this government have other priorities besides defence.
Kindest I can be to them.
All that wouod happen Heath Robinson style once it’s too late, missiles and Drones were hitting, and politicians were making recriminating statements swearing that lessons would be learned.
With zero accountability.
That is the political “system” we live in.
The Government talks up about defence and just had delivered a credible defence review, but not a lot of change with procurement.
The Armed Forces are in a terrible state, cut into way past the bone. Just recently, they cut another frigate from the fleet, just to prove that sadly its on a huge decline. Im not blaming the labour party for the state of the Armed Forces we have now, as its been a continuous list of cutting , since the peace divide, but I am blaming them now, for not getting things moving, with a sense of urgency.
The biggest issue, is money and thats down to the treasury and the Chancellor, who rather spend money on welfare etc
Things need to change, as we cant carry on, the way we our.
I think there is sufficient budgeted to fund the equipment that suppliers ( whether UK or foreign) can realistically deliver in the next 2-3 years. The issue as I understand it, is that the funds are not being released. It’s possible that Starmer does not believe the DIP costings are credible. He has sent Healey away to do his homework again.