Army may face cuts to fund TA reservists

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Irish_Cream, Jul 16, 2011.

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. BBC News - Army may face cuts to fund TA reservists


    The government is considering making further cuts to the size of the Army to enable a "substantial increase" in reserve forces such as the TA.

    An independent review of reserve forces is expected to recommend a recruitment drive for more part-time soldiers.

    Better pay and training will be offered but there will be more emphasis on reservists in civilian jobs to go on military operations when needed.

    The government already plans to reduce soldiers by 7,000 to 95,000 by 2015.

    The review, which is set to be published next week, is calling for more part-time soldiers, sailors and airmen in the TA, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.

    The aim is to make the reserves more professional, forming more stand-alone units that can deploy and operate on their own, rather than just attaching reservists in small groups across the regular forces.

    'Upfront cash'

    Reservists cost much less than regular forces and increasing their number would in the long run save the Ministry of Defence (MoD) substantial sums.

    The government is already cutting the size of the full-time army as a result of the defence spending review announced last year.

    Any further cuts in the regular army - to help pay for increasing the reserves - would begin only after combat troops have left Afghanistan in 2015.

    There are currently around 36,000 servicemen and women in the TA, with a few thousand in the maritime and air force reserves.

    One defence source said the MoD would need upfront cash to pay for an expansion of the TA but he added that "more reserves will mean fewer regulars but not until we are out of Afghanistan".

    He added that the reduction in full time servicemen and women would be "over and on top of" existing planned cuts.

    An MoD spokesperson said: "Following the Strategic Defence and Security Review a series of additional studies have been undertaken to continue the work of transforming and rebalancing defence.

    "We expect to announce the findings of these studies to Parliament next week and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time."
     
  2. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    And anyone who could not see this coming, over the last few months, needs to go to an opticians.

    Numbers kept up, costs kept down? Win/win for politicians of all colours. They are not worried about details, like deployability, after all. The simple truth is, our Army is too large for our needs - or would be, if our leaders were a bit sensible. For a Nation our size, 50 or 60,000 should be ample. This, combined with the horrendous cost of paying regular service personnel, and the fact that we only have enough kit to equip one or maybe two Brigades anyway, make this a no-brainer for Tory, Libs, and Lab alike.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I see an increase in funding, an increase in MTDs, an increase in operational deployments, but not an increase in numbers.
     
  4. Where are all these extra reservists going to come from? In the short term perhaps ex regs, but in the longer term our ability to wage and win war will be degraded completely.
     
  5. The amount of actual trained TA is about 14k at the moment. Numbers will increase but a full marketing/ recruiting campaign is needed with support to the pipelines etc
     
  6. well there are about to be 19,000 fully trained squaddies looking for jobs...
     
  7. Re employ them on temp contracts and no need to pay them pensions?
     
  8. Ive been in the TA 14 years and got a lot out of it and in my eyes repaid what its given me by answering the call when needed.

    However this is a terrible idea , whilst the TA trains hard and are probably the most professional they have ever been. They cannot hold a candle to a REGULAR soldier who does the job day in day out. TA are perfect for reinforcing the regular forces but I fear this is the start of the slippery slope.

    Im also wondering where these extra TA are going to come from , fitness is being refocussed on throughout the TA ( a good thing) but we are seeing a drop in attendance/retention because of it. It could be argued that if they cannot meet the fitness standard then losing a soldier is no loss but the reality is not quite that simple.

    Im based at an RTC for last 3 years and the TSC (a) for the 6 weekends we used to have 40-50 recruits at the start of a course now our starting numbers are about 20-25. This coming week we have 11 recruits who have made it to weekend 6 having started with 23 of those 11 I think 2 may struggle with completing the next phase TSC (B).

    Add to that more regular deployment for the TA and thats going to play hell with families/jobs which will also affect retention. The only thing I can see being a bonus is that I would expect a large percentage of the Regulars who are affected by this may join the TA thereby giving us an influx of experience but im not sure you can rely on that.
     
  9. If we assume we aren't going to do regular deployments for a while, the original ethos for joining the TA comes back after a 10ish year blip - defence of the UK not US foreign policy.. heh presto, we have a TA capable getting back upto big numbers (although I don't think it's that simple).

    It's not cutting regular funding to fund reserves ... it's more generals, still maintaining a largish army on paper to justify their own rank in future (cynic me)
     
  10. Do you think that, Because the training is tougher and there is a better sense of professionalism, it may just be harder to get to weekend six, therefore only getting the best and most committed
     
  11. Thats kind of my point yes the training is getting tougher and higher standards are expected but its a case of getting 9 good soldiers instead of 30 average ones your not going to make the numbers required by the govt.

    However the 9 good soldiers doesnt neccessarily make them the most committed I had one recruit who is a poster boy for the ideal soldier but he has had major issues with his employer and he is still trying to work out his options

    My dad was a 25 regular and im a 14 years (and counting) TA so I can see both viewpoints , i remember my last tour once we settled into the tour most of the regs didnt even know we were TA (we didnt exactly advertise ourselves as such) but when they found out they were really suprised at the good standard of our drills that said when we did the optag training of the 120 TA soldiers 47 passed the PFT so fitness is an issue.
     
  12. 'However this is a terrible idea , whilst the TA trains hard and are probably the most professional they have ever been. They cannot hold a candle to a REGULAR soldier who does the job day in day out. TA are perfect for reinforcing the regular forces but I fear this is the start of the slippery slope.

    Im also wondering where these extra TA are going to come from , fitness is being refocussed on throughout the TA ( a good thing) but we are seeing a drop in attendance/retention because of it. It could be argued that if they cannot meet the fitness standard then losing a soldier is no loss but the reality is not quite that simple.
    '

    Exactly my thoughts. A relatively small proportion of civvies can actually meet the standards in terms of commitment and physical fitness anyway, so the government's expectations are a little unrealistic.

    I was thinking a lot about rejoining over the last week or two, but I'll wait out another 6 months to see if this develops into another clusterfuck initiative.
     
  13. Army may face ***** to fund TA reservists

    fixed that fer yer
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Army may face ***** to fund TA reservists

    fixed that fer yer


    Army shafted by government *****.
     
  15. you also dont pay them x factor, you stop subsidising housing, food, travel etc etc

    i'm sure the bean counters arent that cynical though.