Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

That's why Bernard Grey wants to make DE&S into a Trading Fund - so he can attract the best talent and pay them commensurately.

Newsflash:

The part of DERA that became Dstl is run as a trading fund, and if by "paid commensurately" you mean "the same or less than mainstream MoD", then that is very true...

So we return to square 1: we want private sector "performance", on reduced public sector wages, whilst shaming those who have worked hard and been promoted.

It's up there with our considered National Strategy, leading us bravely forward to 2020 and beyond.....

Originally Posted by ugly

The fact that someone somewhere feels the need for our forces to be involved somewhere is quite disturbing, ffs we are now only big enough to act as a defence force (thanks to politicians) and having the troops home getting some decent training which doesnt inviolve them being killed in foreign shitholes to keep politicians happy would be nice for once.
Why do generals (if it is them) feel the need to maintain operational experience at such a level, its the current operational experience that is causing such dramas and if these august pages are to be believed the experience gets ignored anyway!

About a hundred yrs ago, on one of my earliest YO Eddie McAsian courses, we were being taught that the 'use it or lose it' mindset had long been a part of the military/political landscape. But back in them days, the Cold War created (a) The political demand for big forces, and at the same time (b) the stalemate that reduced the likelihood of them being used to near-zero.

Take away that tension, open Pandora's box, and continue to populate your most senior ranks with the kind of backward-looking unimaginative souls who have been the staple of our Army Board since before my Gt Grandad was born, and voila - you have yerself our early 21st Century problem. New situation: old responses.

Originally Posted by Stonker

About a hundred yrs ago, on one of my earliest YO Eddie McAsian courses, we were being taught that the 'use it or lose it' mindset had long been a part of the military/political landscape. But back in them days, the Cold War created (a) The political demand for big forces, and at the same time (b) the stalemate that reduced the likelihood of them being used to near-zero.

Take away that tension, open Pandora's box, and continue to populate your most senior ranks with the kind of backward-looking unimaginative souls who have been the staple of our Army Board since before my Gt Grandad was born, and voila - you have yerself our early 21st Century problem. New situation: old responses.

It's about bloody time you turned up. I reckon we're about halfway through our regular thought process over the future of the British Armed Forces, to whit: over-manning of HQs, Officer careers and education, lack of strategy (at every level, if that's not too oxymoronic), conservatism through-out the forces, and for good measure, regimental identity. If you've got the weight, I'm off to sea for a bit ;)

Originally Posted by Stonker

About a hundred yrs ago, on one of my earliest YO Eddie McAsian courses, we were being taught that the 'use it or lose it' mindset had long been a part of the military/political landscape. But back in them days, the Cold War created (a) The political demand for big forces, and at the same time (b) the stalemate that reduced the likelihood of them being used to near-zero.

Take away that tension, open Pandora's box, and continue to populate your most senior ranks with the kind of backward-looking unimaginative souls who have been the staple of our Army Board since before my Gt Grandad was born, and voila - you have yerself our early 21st Century problem. New situation: old responses.

But I thought that after 10 years of operational activity we would have senior officers who understood that regiment / arm is not everything?

These same senior officers will ensure that the whole structure and capability of the armed forces is what is important and that change must be dealt with on a non-aligned, fair and even process that will identify what is required and work as a balanced and non-partisan team to achieve the best result.

Then I woke up.

im just a civvie so does this mean we are bonned when the shit hits the fan?

Originally Posted by t-dog

im just a civvie so does this mean we are bonned when the shit hits the fan?

Tell me what 'bonned' means and I may be able to answer your question.

Screwed, Fukced, in trouble, one of them moments when you gulp and you dont know the outcome will be but you so know that it ain't gunna be pretty

Originally Posted by Sangreal

Why? Do you know of some rule of physics/logic/legislation that says the number of starred officers should be less than the number of Bns?

I'll KISS.

"We're skint!"

Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

Originally Posted by Sangreal

Why? Do you know of some rule of physics/logic/legislation that says the number of starred officers should be less than the number of Bns?

I'll KISS.

"We're skint!"

What a bone reply. The fact that we're skint does not present sufficient logic to say that starred officers should be equal to or fewer than the number of infantry battalions.

Are you really suggesting that the British Army can create a top level structure with as little as 40 starred officers? If so then you need to do a bit of remedial study into the management of a modern Army.