I've not had the pleasure of reading Tootal's book. Would it be fair to say therefore, that the military would be better of focusing it's efforts on providing as secure an environment as possible for this work to carry on. (On the assumption that we do not become part of the problem).

Given that the MoD is not planning on LSDI in the short and medium terms, it therefore has no requirement for any sizeable CIMIC capability (regular or reserve!)?

... or indeed any military capability for anything other than COIN.

If this argument is correct, and if the MOD really means what it says about making Afghanistan the main effort of Defence then the TA should be put out to pasture and the vast bulk of the Armed Forces made redundant and its kit sold or mothballed.

And the £35bn clawed back from 'procurement'. I think you might be having evil, megalomaniac thoughts again

Love the way you're thinking outside the box there, Sangreal. That's a well-argued case for rigidity (oo-er, matron, etc.).

The Cabinet Office/FCO/DFID Stabilisation Unit maintain a collated database of civilian experts' qualifications. They use it on a case-by-case basis to trawl for people to with relevant expertise for nation-building tasks. They approach them with a description of the task to see if they are available/willing to do it. From the cohort of people identified in this way, they then pick out those with the skills that most closely match the task. They do not require the experts' employers do disclose their last five years' annual reports or to retest them on quals.

So it ain't rocket science (although if it were, I know a rocket scientist who is in the TA and who would be able to help), and the Army has managed to get it right occasionally: see here.


It would not be "two-tier". The use of the civilian capabilties of SNCOs and of officers would justify keeping them on, in their current roles within a TA chain of command.

That's an integrated, one-tier model which would enable the flick back to a TA geared for contingency ops/LSDI should that day ever come.

The alternatives are:

(a) a one-tier TA consisting of Ptes, LCpls and 2Lts administered by RTCs; or
(b) no TA.

I get the strong feeling that plenty of people posting on this forum seem to think it is somehow more noble to go down on the burning ship of an outmoded TA than to adapt what they offer to the COIN fight.

I think most would welcome some strategic direction on what the army would like to see the TA become and see how that fits into their life.

msr

Last edited by msr on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

I have no doubt what you propose will come true in some form or another but it's not the format of the future TA.

You've excluded, as most of us have, the combat service support arms. I can't see them changing all that much.

a. CSS arms as per pre Oct TA (can we have some CSS reps backing this up??? surely you know about this website?????)

b. CS fuzzy area but maybe as above.

c. Combat arms as per post Oct TA (with maybe SNCO's and officers getting paid for weekends once they move over to CIMIC role - as per Dr Evil thoughts)

The 'no TA' discounted because of the CSS TA roles. If any TA units start paid training I'd expect it'd be CSS.

I heard a very similar line being touted pre the last SDR - and the sub-text was that the future of the TA was very solidly linked to the future of anything with heavy armour or a desire for a bit of "high intensity". If our colleagues in LAND are willing to settle on having just a COIN Op ( I love that phrase, so 1960s gas meter) capability then fine. The UK can get in line to draw its float and arm-bands, because as far as the US is concerned we will be non-swimmers.

Can you give a little more detail on why a TA capability in CSS and CS is so essential, and the way in which it has been and will be used, in the current and future (reshaped) COIN effort?

Handy considering the vast bulk of the TA come from companies under 25 strong! Just how many specialists and in what areas do the MoD believe they will get their hands on at any given time?

[/quote]

Based on what I've read on these boards over the last week or so, i'm beginning to believe that maybe we should just do the decent thing and end the TA pain quickly, rather than leaving it in the corridor of Krankenhaus MoD, waiting for Dr Mengele and his main building hoarde to performing inept surgery without consultation or anaesthetic.

The downside would be a huge loss to those who have served and are serving, or have made innumerous sacrifices to do so.

The upside would be happy been counters, a huge pile of real estate that could be added to the Govt garage sale, and thousands of PSIs who could be returned to the Regular Army or discharged. This would take a huge chunk out of consultancy fees that we will inevitably pay out to KBR etc.

Last edited by Mr_Bridger on Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

So did I. I wonder if it was the same person - Cpl type, hung out with some Yeomanry Signals near the eastern end of the M40?

Used to cause great hilarity when visiting instructors would say, "it aint rocket science, ladies & gents!" Class would reply, "don't worry, Staff, Cpl X will explain if it is..."

Dunno. I'm a serving STAB, not an MoD-wallah. As a STAB, I would suggest we say 28,900 or so.


Inspiring. Was that Slim or Churchill?

Maybe, on the other hand, you could adapt - and persuade others to do so? You know - do the leadership thing?


I'd say that the downsides of abolishing the TA are:

(a) loss (or significant reduction) of Britain's LSDI capability;* and

(b) consequent loss of Britain's standing as an international power, as it would be unable to project it (a boatload of nukes we cannot use does not count) - including (possible) loss of its UN Security Council seat and status (if you can call it that) as a partner of the US; and

(c) loss of a potential means of achieving our COIN goals in Afghanistan more cheaply, leading (possibly) to an earlier exit from that country than is necessary because of budget pressure, with consequent ridicule of Britain as a fighting nation and increase in the threat we face at home; and

(d) as you mentioned, lots of glum TA people.

In my view, (a) to (c) inclusive are the important ones.

* sounds like big chat but it is true (assuming Britain has an LSDI capability right now)

[
Errrr...Would the RLC Colonel who publicy thanked in the letters page of Soldier Magazine the TA and reservists who made up 25% of his establishment in Gulf War II be acceptable...?

Or the various TA Medical staff who deployed in the last few years do you..?

GCM looks "aceptable" for delivering poorly trained infantry. It does f**k all to address the shortages in other arms within the Army. Like engineers, medics, or drivers.

Dr_Evil,

Much as I hate to disagree with you, leadership comes from the top. Trying to hold the whole thing together until April next year is not leadership, it is make do and muddle through, with a splash of desperation thrown in.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Britain is slipping off the global top table. Rather then re-arrange the deckchairs, why not set out a new course, sell it to the rest of the country and go there. That is leadership.

msr

I'm nowhere near as articulate as either or them, or even you my learned friend!



Ah leadership.... I've heard of it. Correct me if i'm wrong but is that when something hugely important gets leaked, and "leaders" burn the candles until the early hours getting the correct information out to those they command along with something Churchillian perhaps to keep us going. Almost 10 days later, soldiers are getting much of their info off this board as a follow up to a Fcuking ABN (of no consequence), and a letter penned by some Fcukwit giving soldiers lines to take with the upshot that as a result "TA Soldiers will be reassured that they are appreciated and valued" (or words to that effect). What are they smoking??? CDT !

Is that the sort of leadership which any of us should aspire to?

(Not directed at you Dr E!)



I'd agree with you wholeheartedly on A-D, I was being emotive rather than doctrinal.

On the subject of the Nuke subs, i find it more than cringeworthy that Gordon Brown offers scraps buying 1 of the 4 as a gesture towards nucleur reduction when its common knowledge across the globe that we can ill afford it anyway.


(EDITED for mong editing!)

We had a gal who, falling asleep in a lecture on "The effects of a Nuclear Weapon" got bollocked by the PSI...... retort " But Colour, I make the bloody things...." - She worked at Aldermaston.

As I mentioned, I don't feel qualified to expand on their efforts. Although I am aware of the medics sending out formed units from each and every FH (or so I believe). I'd expect RLC to follow along similar lines.

Is the SDR view of the TA is still alive and kicking? We all know who's yeomanry, arty, inf or Sigs on this site and most debates concentrate on these. I'd admit the 'RCZ' view of the TA RSigs has failed and all their roles have been taken over by regular units (e.g. 2, 22 and 33 Sigs Regts - incoming).

Would expand more but gtg

I think the reality of the situation is that the Army is skint, end of!

This current goverment doesn't see the need to realease more funds for the Army despite the fact that we are involved in a rather tasty ruckas at the moment, that doesn't seem to be ending any time soon.

Unfortunatley I do think the 6 months "off" for the TA is only one of the ways the goverment is saving money within the Army. Both the TA and the Regular Army is going to suffer some form of cutbacks soon, not saying that the Army is going to start laying off but maybe our masters will see it fit not to provide us with certain things, in a "cost cutting measure".

Long and short of it is were not quite in the s*** yet but when we do land in it, it would be better to do away with the TA vs Regs. mindsight (from both sides of the fence). It is still one Army lads.

No, SDR view is very broken! TA currently set for MSPE to LS ops. Who thinks any govt facing the resource picture of the next few years would ELECT to send a div warfighting anywhere? Hence the cutting of TA RSigs capability.

If not a policy aspiration, why have a big force set to do it? Future utility must be in providing 10% of a deployed force, predominantly as IRs, specialists and the odd pl (coy at a push if the job is right). I reckon the TA on here who see a need to increase utility (while decreasing capability to send Bns) are probably those best placed to adapt. RLC send specilaist small sub units now and again but massive preponderance is JNCOs and Privates in (at most) formed sections. Because let's be frank a tp of TA Dvrs from any Regt would not be able to perform straight away as a tp in a CLP (not because they are bad people, but because they cannot be trained to the standard needed wihtout massive investment of time and resources)

Those hankering after having fully trained sp coys and entire Sqns of DROPS all ready to go are, I reckon, heading for a fall!

Well not exactly in its current form. So if I take what you have seen, the future of the RLC is very limited. RSigs have ZERO soldiers commited to LSDI/SDR etc, so it follows it's cull time for other corps (remaining RSigs are still UK Ops and IR generation - plus formed units, if thats still valid)

Would not like to hazard a guess about any corps - but would be so bold as to guess that formed units able to deploy as such are probably not the way ahead.