Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

If there were to be redundancies, they would be proportional, you can’t just get rid of the seniors... you still need the rank triangle. (1 x WO, 2 x WO2, 4 x C/SSgt, 8 x Sgt etc...)

If you don’t maintain this balance you’d have to replace all of the seniors, but where from? Just promote the Lance Jacks and Cpls to WO2s and WOs?

If you’ve been accepted to rejoin, relax, you’ve been accepted. They won’t just bin you off before you’ve even got your uniform off of the Q’s.

The Army has a system, like the proverbial sausage factory. Recruits in one end and a process all the way up to CGS. If you stop the input there will be a bubble that feeds all the way through and sometime in the future there will be a gap in trained personnel.
At the time of 'Options for Change' in the early Nineties they cut the recruitment tap off completly. When they needed to recruit again a few years later they turned the recruitment tap on and thought that the recruits would pour out in a flood, but found only a trickle came out.

Since that time, whenever there have been Defence cuts they have been careful not to turn the tap off completely.
 
This exercise has been done before. The German army was limited by Versailles treaty to a force only capable of maintaining internal order... 100,000 men for a population of 60 Million. By that very punitive standard we're between 20 and 30,000 men short....
 
If in doubt obfuscate and argue that you were arguing something you patently weren't. As ever, you remain in 1990. Names change. There's no reason why the Army Reserve shouldn't grow, more chance with a cut in regulars, whether it does is another thing - Regular intransigence being one of the biggest stumbling blocks.

The army don't want national service, the RN and the RAF certainly don't, only the 'kipperati, who are living back in 1980/90.
Dun_n_dusted post #505 referenced the point that national service was never coming back and that was the 'reality' presented to me and what I was replying too. You jumped on that, without understanding a reality or environment can change when the facts change.

The facts:-
If you reduce the size of an active service, ALL your reserves over time will also reduce. That is an established fact and quite important to the army chiefs of the past, as they're seemed to understand that your entire reserve component, should be a factor above 1, in relation to the active land forces.

Conclusion:-
The present army is seriously undermanned on its reserve side already and a reduction of 20k active soldiers would create a serious problem in our ability to sustain a conflict over time.
 
Dun_n_dusted post #505 referenced the point that national service was never coming back and that was the 'reality' presented to me and what I was replying too. You jumped on that, without understanding a reality or environment can change when the facts change.

The facts:-
If you reduce the size of an active service, ALL your reserves over time will also reduce. That is an established fact and quite important to the army chiefs of the past, as they're seemed to understand that your entire reserve component, should be a factor above 1, in relation to the active land forces.

Conclusion:-
The present army is seriously undermanned on its reserve side already and a reduction of 20k active soldiers would create a serious problem in our ability to sustain a conflict over time.
An obvious solution presents itself in the current mess and it is basically to offer those made redundant half pay in the Army Reserve i.e. either a 199 or 207 RSD contract depending on whether they are serving in a National or Regional unit. Given that AR is now fully pensionable under AFPS15, it means that trained manpower still has a job, still gets paid and still gets a pension at the end of it. It will keep the AR topped up for the next 5-10 years and then look at a GI Bill to get the youngsters in.
 
An obvious solution presents itself in the current mess and it is basically to offer those made redundant half pay in the Army Reserve i.e. either a 199 or 207 RSD contract depending on whether they are serving in a National or Regional unit. Given that AR is now fully pensionable under AFPS15, it means that trained manpower still has a job, still gets paid and still gets a pension at the end of it. It will keep the AR topped up for the next 5-10 years and then look at a GI Bill to get the youngsters in.
That all assumes there is the budget available to pay for it however, on the surface it appears to be a pragmatic and workable solution, and buys time to develop a fully-fledged future plan.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
If there were to be redundancies, they would be proportional, you can’t just get rid of the seniors... you still need the rank triangle. (1 x WO, 2 x WO2, 4 x C/SSgt, 8 x Sgt etc...)
Oh Padawan..... early 90s MoD offered redundancy and anyone with half a brain and seniority applied, almost all got it leaving gaping holes of experience and expertise.

I've seen nothing in the intervening years to suggest MoD has learnt the lesson.
 
Oh Padawan..... early 90s MoD offered redundancy and anyone with half a brain and seniority applied, almost all got it leaving gaping holes of experience and expertise.

I've seen nothing in the intervening years to suggest MoD has learnt the lesson.
The CS did the same in 2010-11. A couple of my colleagues did very nicely indeed out of it.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
At the time of 'Options for Change' in the early Nineties they cut the recruitment tap off completly. When they needed to recruit again a few years later they turned the recruitment tap on and thought that the recruits would pour out in a flood, but found only a trickle came out.

Since that time, whenever there have been Defence cuts they have been careful not to turn the tap off completely.
Turning off the tap created 'the black hole' which for the Navy was still felt 15+ years later. The recruit pipeline is a machine that needs to constantly be moving or all of the elements stagnate.
 
That all assumes there is the budget available to pay for it however, on the surface it appears to be a pragmatic and workable solution, and buys time to develop a fully-fledged future plan.
The capitation rate is far, far less. No accommodation, no automatic medical and dental care, reduced x factor, no LSA, but the individual has much more flexibility and a better work-life balance.
 
An obvious solution presents itself in the current mess and it is basically to offer those made redundant half pay in the Army Reserve i.e. either a 199 or 207 RSD contract depending on whether they are serving in a National or Regional unit. Given that AR is now fully pensionable under AFPS15, it means that trained manpower still has a job, still gets paid and still gets a pension at the end of it. It will keep the AR topped up for the next 5-10 years and then look at a GI Bill to get the youngsters in.
Please Sir! Please Sir!

Fast track any redundant regulars into the CS and de civilianise MOD CS.
 
We already have a ministry of defence and its simply inefficient to have the three services underneath the CS. The bottom line is were in the 21st century and a technologically sophisticated professional force and an old fashioned conscript driven territorial defence in the event that we need to build capacity quickly buys a reduced professional land element.
Is this available in English? Are you supporting conscription?
 

Bob65

War Hero
At the time of 'Options for Change' in the early Nineties they cut the recruitment tap off completly. When they needed to recruit again a few years later they turned the recruitment tap on and thought that the recruits would pour out in a flood, but found only a trickle came
They fundamentally misunderstood the reasons people join, which is odd because "they" or at least some of them were civil servants subject to some of the same motivations. Then again, the civil service has never experienced meaningful cuts so they had nothing to relate to.

Anyone (nearly) who will make a decent soldier can easily make better money and have an easier life in a civilian job such as a tradesman. People join because they want to be part of something bigger, an institution (yes I know that's not the only reason). But if the institution is in decline or seen as such, and the terms of the job get closer to a civilian job (job security, pension, etc) then people weigh their options accordingly.

Viewed from the inside of course many people would still say the job is worth it in terms of overall satisfaction, but I'm talking about the perspective of an 18-year-old deciding whether to go for the Army, or take that offer for an apprenticeship or college place instead, or a graduate looking at graduate programmes at major corporations that are institutions in their own right.
 
They fundamentally misunderstood the reasons people join, which is odd because "they" or at least some of them were civil servants subject to some of the same motivations. Then again, the civil service has never experienced meaningful cuts so they had nothing to relate to.

Anyone (nearly) who will make a decent soldier can easily make better money and have an easier life in a civilian job such as a tradesman. People join because they want to be part of something bigger, an institution (yes I know that's not the only reason). But if the institution is in decline or seen as such, and the terms of the job get closer to a civilian job (job security, pension, etc) then people weigh their options accordingly.

Viewed from the inside of course many people would still say the job is worth it in terms of overall satisfaction, but I'm talking about the perspective of an 18-year-old deciding whether to go for the Army, or take that offer for an apprenticeship or college place instead, or a graduate looking at graduate programmes at major corporations that are institutions in their own right.
There are people on this thread who will have the actual figures, but civil servant numbers across the MOD have been slashed over the last 25 years (albeit some TUPEd to other organisations).
 

Bob65

War Hero
There are people on this thread who will have the actual figures, but civil servant numbers across the MOD have been slashed over the last 25 years (albeit some TUPEd to other organisations).
That just makes it even stranger that they wouldn't understand why. Does the CS have the same trouble recruiting?
 
Because they need to keep the recruiting system ticking over. Being a soldier is a young man’s game, stop recruiting, man pool gets smaller AND older.
That lesson was learned the hard way in the early 90s after Options for Change. When they simultaneously cut the numbers and slowed recruiting.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
That just makes it even stranger that they wouldn't understand why. Does the CS have the same trouble recruiting?
no real term pay rise in forever, pension getting reduced incessantly, redundancy terms slashed repeatedly, no promotion prospects, very high churn of new starters leaving the old and bold increasingly burnt out. easy enough to get Graduates looking for a first job in the door, but they don’t stay long, Other than that, it’s great.
 
no real term pay rise in forever, pension getting reduced incessantly, redundancy terms slashed repeatedly, no promotion prospects, very high churn of new starters leaving the old and bold increasingly burnt out. easy enough to get Graduates looking for a first job in the door, but they don’t stay long, Other than that, it’s great.
And in specialist areas (IT, cyber...) recruitment and retention is abysmal. £35k for a systems administrator? Industry will pay at lot more.
 
If you reduce the size of an active service, ALL your reserves over time will also reduce. That is an established fact
Thats why you recruit directly into the reserves


It may be beneficial to split again if not units then individual contracts into the Active reserve - (ex forces and people willing to deploy) and the TA who are home service only which would enable recruitment of those opposed to foreign adventures / believe defence is just that and starts at Dover.* A reserve MPGS if you will - They would be available for civil aid etc - but also create a pool of trained manpower (which can be conscripted) in the event we need it

*Theres a lot who wouldn't join the army but would join a national defence force - that could extend to the airforce - It would be more difficult for the Navy - unless we define national as ez/eez and bring back coastal forces**

**Tongue in cheek im well aware that unless hiding amongst Fjords etc the Lynx Sea Skua combo rather pointedly demonstrated the limitations of FAC's
 

Latest Threads

Top