37 year career (till age 55) in R Sigs

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Superdood, Jan 31, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. With the new ageism laws coming in and the prospect of a R Sigs career till 55 does anyone have strong views about this decision - good or bad

    Advantages - retention of valuable experience

    Disadvantages - Likelihood of more unfit soldiers - promotion dormancy
  2. Why likelihood of unfit soldiers, speaking for yourself?

    Presuming that those adults in charge will still ensure everyone has to pass certain criteria like CFTs etc... unless you think the Corps is moving towards the RAF way of doing things!
  3. God why does every comment have to get personal? Are you that naive to think that everyone will stay as fit as they are in their 20s when they are 50 ????? its a fact neither you nor I can change mate - take it up with our almighty creator the next time
  4. Mmmm. But in general, a lot of the unfit soldiers are the younger ones. So how do you work that out?
  5. I was only giving one possible disadvantage - your argument will definitely become a problem later in their careers so keep the comments coming good or bad
  6. SD, soldiers would be required to remain "fit" in relation to their age. You wouldn't expect the 50 year old to be doing the same BPFA times as the 20 year old. You would be required to be fit for your age, so i dont see it being a problem.

    What I imagine it will do is slow promotion to a situation similar to the RAF. Basing the entire career over 37 years instead of 22 will mean longer in each rank, but its my view that the retention of experience is a significant win. Whether ambitious individuals will put up with the situation remains to be seen (having worked with the RAF for a couple of years, they lose a significant amount of excellent quality full screws at around the 15 year mark, because they have marketable skills and get fed up with marking time).

    A longer career will no doubt appeal to some, and will also require a significant culture change for us as a Corps. Any change which halts the needless waste of quality and experience because you have reached some outdated line in the sand gets my vote.
  7. To tell you the truth, from someone who has been out for a couple of years. I was naturally cautious about getting out after almost 26 years, but looking back, it was the right time to go and I am glad that I got out when I did. But I had to actually get out to realise it. I don't think staying in till 55 would be what I want.
  8. I can remember being given an insight by MCM into this and they were thinking of having 2 steams.

    Stream A were soldiers who would or wanted to complete 22 years, perhaps commission but remind on the current time scales for promotion.

    Stream B were soldiers who decided (at an appropriate time - which I think was around the 10 year point) to enter Stream B in order to extend out. At this point promotion zones would slow right down inorder to bring them in line with picking up WO1 in their last 5 years or so as the current zones are supposed to.

    A point at the time was that soldiers whilst having an option would not automatically get to go into Stream B and they would want to select those who they deemed right for this... what ever that meant but you can imagine.


    Stay as fit yes, be as fast no. There is a difference and that is reflected in timings for such tests and assessments the Army set us. I may not be as fast as some of my younger breathren but I am probably stronger and have a far better mental discipline.

    It was not that personal, I could have called you lots of names. You made a bone statement without thinking it through which allows me to presume you are old and unfit and are relating how you feel rather than the standards which can be set.
  9. I can assure you I am super fit (sub 9 every time without a sweat)- the difference as I always say to juniors between soldier fit and schoolboy fit is mental attitude - look at the fittest guy in the world paddy whatshisname (ex para) looks frumpy but by christ he does a mean press up - thats down to mental attitude and i agree 50 year olds can make it so however my gut instinct is that they will become a minority in the mass of 37 year career men. Id like to be proved wrong but i just cant see how the human body can take the punishment over 37 years. My mate was a corps sportsman super super superfit - he is now 35 and the poor guy is riddled with arthritis - he literally wore his body out starting with his knees and then to his elbows - poor guy is in bits now.
  10. You are not eligible or strictly permitted to carry out PT once over 50, as MOD is not keen to have too many dead (older) folk lying around in Gymnasiums. Fitness at this age becomes a personal, standards issue and soldiers over 50 are unlikely (hopefully) to be required to skirmish into the assault. I believe the Topic to be something of a Red Herring.

    The issue surely is whether or not we should be reatining older soldiers for REMF duties, thus releasing younger troops to Ops. Suits me!!
  11. Also the definition of fitness is the ability of the human body to cope with a given physical task

    If speed comes into the task does this mean youll be 20m behind the other soldiers in a skirmish? Is this acceptable ?
  12. Well said lets get back on track
  13. I think it makes complete sense - we retain the most experienced soldiers, not only in the trade sense, but also in the management sense. A superb return on training investment.

    It provides a 'full and varied career' in the truest sense. Soldiers will not move up to the supervisory level as quick, you then have skilled soldiers who spend more time as 'indians' before they become 'chiefs'. Again a the return on investment is massive.

    After 37 years service, you probably don't have to work again, promotion won't be as quick, however it will be the same for everyone.

    Fitness and ability to do the job, would be factored in as some short of 'choke point'. It won't be for everyone I know, but if the correct soldiers are identified and retained it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.
  14. On the negative side, what about issues with too set in their ways , generation gaps and old skool methods - just trying to balance the arguments
  15. This is a Royal Signals board and I know for some in the Corps Technical Comms is a dirty word...but can we talk about trade skill?. :winkrazz: A long career would generate some very highly technically skilled trsdesmen. A tradesman could actually afford to spend more than 2 years in a post and actually get to know the job and really get his/her teeth into it whilst also establishing a good working procedure to hand over. I personally feel that for a technical job 2 years is too short as it takes 6 months to find your feet and your last six months your thinking about your posting. Longer periods in post would, I believe make stronger tradesmen. I know we argue that our RAF collegues are sometimes too focussed on one topic due to their static nature and are sometimes perceived as unadaptable, however I do believe that maybe we could go halfway, something which may be possible with the V-Eng.