Ideas for SDSR

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Pizzle, Jul 23, 2010.

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. You will have seen the link on other threads to submit your ideas to the MOD for SDSR. I've had a go but there's only a few days to go so get in there.

    However, we'll never see those great ideas (is that the cunning plan? Conspiracy theory anyone?)...unless we post a summary on here.

    For starters:

    1. Close the Procurement Executive and get a contract with Ernst and Young/PWC/KPMG/Deloittes to do it for us. Lean decision making, removes endless committees and subsequent confusion, and they're on the 'hook' if they get it wrong. Imagine a commercial business negotiating on price rather than past over Majors...

    2. Expand the TA - improved VFM, cements the Firm Base, justifies the Estate, large critical mass for regeneration and IR supply (when and if ever required again).

    3. Make all Regional Bde Comds posts open to TA officers - it really isn't that difficult and in my experience less of a challenge than Unit Command yet costs a fortune.

    4. Use TACs for Regular outlets/activity: stores, Careers, HQs etc

    5. Wholesale clear out of the management structure especially in places like Andover.

    6. Stop posting people to ridiculously titled jobs that add no value.

    7. Stop suggesting that conflict is 'complex' and justifying huge organisations on the back of it.

    8. Put 'accountants' in charge of the money, not Officers on two year tours who know nothing about it but pretend they do - there's nothing worse.

    9. bang the heads together of the Army, Navy and RAF chiefs and make them work as a team to do the right thing for all of us, not as a divided bunch of self important ego's who haven't seen a real soldier for years.

    10. Close Glasgow.
  2. Revisit and reinforce the social benefits of a volunteer TA, not just delivering regulars on the cheap.

    Remove RTCs and return TA Training to Units - more role specific, One Army, focus.

    Offer Voluntary redundancy to the regulars, it works for commerce.

    Close all OTCs; saves regulars practising for the future on TA pay, removes 19 commands, and honestly, would anyone really notice?

    Ask a PSI?
  3. Get rid of all those civvies in Mod
  4. Wont expand TA
    When leave afghan its dead money. No point

    Need SOC (UKSF) and Hard power platforms like type 45's that are upgunned to take out naval platforms.

    Need to use TA to recruit the best drone pilots. Nothing says regs better than TA computer game addiction kids.
  5. Allocate LSDI hardware (Guns, Tanks etc) to TA - double benefit of TA having an enduring task, and the nation doesn't watch the family silver turn to rust.

    Stop thinking that the TA is going to contribute to UK Ops - it won't.

    Insert commercial businessman everywhere to weed out inefficiency, piss poor management, and dross civil servants most of whom (with the odd exception) have no idea what a full day's work actually is.

    Reiterate the APC Glasgow thing - such endemic waste. Do you think any large company (Tescos, M&S etc) of comparable scale has an HR department like the APC? No.
  6. A friend of mine works on oracle databases for a large company, like the one JPA is based around. When i told him the kind of guffaws that that my pay had been through, he whipped out a mental list of things that needed to be changed in about 30 seconds. Kinda makes you wonder how they managed to screw it up so badly.
  7. Who would maintain it?
  8. Put almost all of it into deep preservation, and maintain sufficient accessible for sub-unit training in a couple of locs. Differentiate the training times for the various units on each type of kit and rotate them through it. If we can put gunners into AFG from light gun regiments which are only holding 3 or 4 of the 18 pieces that they're scaled for, you'd only need a tiny fraction of the whole in order to allow continuation trg.

    You would need to bin the GCM iot allow trade and collective training in the course of a training cycle - but then you'd have the peace dividend from not running and maintaining all the heavy kit 365 day per year.
  9. This would work. Sell the contract (for a bit of up front cash) for procurement. Let them conduct research, trials, development etc through the Army's existing infrastructure. Contract is indefinite but 1 year's notice can be given at any time. They don't want to mess it up for fear of notice being given, gives them some motive to get it right other than 'our soldiers deserve the best' - which in the world of multi-million pound deals probably doesn't cut it so well.

    I would agree but disagree. Expand usable parts of the TA - infantry, medical, specialists. Cut down R Signals, RE, REME, etc that don't bring so much to the table. I would think that proper-size Signals, LAD, Pioneer etc platoons within infantry units would suffice. The ratio of lads who mobilise to the lads available; in the infantry, is higher than the support arms. Thus, making support arms platoon size within Inf battalions would surely be about the right scaling?

    So - all TA is either: Infantry (walk in off the street, 'I want to join the TA') with opportunities to train in Signals, LAD, Pioneers, etc; Medical (civvy qualified in medical, as most of the doctors on ops are); Specialist (do a civvy job that is useful to the Army on operations, and can perform that role on ops to the standard of or better than a regular soldier).

    Again, yes. There are some TACs with a lot of space that is only used because it is there to be used. If required to cut down, they could. There are a good number of TACs in easy reach of, or in many cases IN, city centres. The Army, however, insist on renting out city-centre shopfronts that normally suit the budget of chain high street stores. Moving them into the 'officers mess' (only there because they can't think of a better use) of the TAC would save a fortune in renting expensive shop fronts, and frankly, I just don't think the 'window displays' cause much difference to the public. Yes, I've seen a TV in the richer sounds window, thought 'that's not a bad idea' and gone and bought it; but never have I walked past an AFCO, seen the model tank in the window and thought 'that's not a bad idea, I'll join the army!' on the grounds of seeing it in the shop window. In current state of play, people go to the AFCO once they've already developed their interest.

    The fact that they seem to be doing nothing either means that they're doing nothing or doing their job properly. Any job done properly will seem like it's not being done - people only notice you when you're doing it badly.

    Conflict is no longer conflict. Conflict is politics.
    One would guess that when you send in the Army, you are simplifying the politics and going for brute force. But no. We insist on sending the Army in, and keeping a full scale political effort going on at the same time. So, conflict is complex - because we make it that way.
  10. Similar to WFM, however you haven't answered my question. Who would maintain the kit not in storage?
  11. My thoughts on this are:

    1. See TA idea in previous post.

    2. Make NCO and Officer pay position-dependent. Not just rank-dependent. A WO2 that's a WO2 because they've worked hard, become a valued member of the battalion and deserves a good pension, still shouldn't be on the same rate as a WO2 who's actually in charge of a company. There are Sgts working in stores because once upon a time[/b] they were leading a platoon, but now they've got a knackered knee they're in stores. Do they regularly command 30 blokes? So do they deserve the same pay as somebody who does? You see 2 clerks in a TAC, one is a Sgt because she's in charge of the 'AGC of such and such Bn' - even though she's only actually in charge of a Pte, a desk and a filing cabinet. That's a LCpl, Cpl if lucky. Even if Sgt is appropriate for the job, the Pay should be in scale with the job actually being done, and relative to the size of unit you lead; not simply relevant to the number of stripes or pips worn.

    3. Somebody needs to look at TA statistics and say 'so what have they done in the last 10 years. UK Ops? A very small amount - 39 Sig Regt in Gloucester floods for instance. In the more recent floods, I'm pretty sure the regs covered it. Is there genuinely a reason why we are paying 30+ MTDs per year for guys who train on obsolete comms systems to use in scenarios that will probably never occur? Is there genuinely a reason why we still train members of the REME to work on obsolete vehicles (as it's all the TA have got) to use in scenarios that will probably never occur? Modernise the TA or shut it. It's just not financially viable to continue using it as a retirement home for all the regular army's old equipment, to give a bunch of people of which 1 in 5 might be mobilised in the forseable future. Exceptions apply, see point 1.

    4. Sack members of the TA who fail to offer anything to modern operations. 3 years in a row failing bounty, are you useful to ops? Last 3 mobilisation windows no interest shown, are you useful to ops? Doing this would save money on MTDs, as well as keeping everyone else on their toes and ensuring that the standards required were regularly met. Keeping lots of people because it makes the annual FTX more fun is longer acceptable.

    5. Spend less on buying junk for recruiting. People don't join the army because you give them free stuff. They join the Army because they want to. I have a decent Army careers waterproof jacket, a not-bad leatherman rip-off with 'be the best' roughly etched on the side, a black maglite with once had 'Army' and the union flag painted on it (which rubbed off after a day's use) as well as more pens, hats and keyrings than I can count. The decent 3 were given to me when in the TA by recruiters at a military tattoo who thought it was too god to give it out to civvies, so were just handing out to all the regs and TA who came over for a chat.
    I don't know how much a bulk-buy of recruiting maglites, leatherman-copies and waterproof jackets cost for recruiting, but I'm quite sure it's money wasted. I'd fill in an 'interest form' if it got me another maglite.
  12. Exactly the same people who currently maintain the TA's kit. All you're doing is replacing say, an L118 with an AS90. Each individual bit of kit is a little on the bigger side, but if we're honest, the civvy gun fitters in TA batteries can't be rushed off their feet maintaining the one gun per bty which is still in the UK especially when their posts are established in line with six-gun battery equipment tables, can they?

    Heaven forfend that we actually expect the MoD CS/NRPS to do a day's work during a day's work.

    The sub-unit's worth kept for centralised collective training can be maintained by...

    ...a civvy gun fitter (or whatever the tankie type equivalent is), their job descriptions are tied into maintaining a sub-unit's worth of equipment. So, okay, I'll admit an ongoing cost here: 2 x MoD CS salary per equipment type. That's probably going to need off-setting against the saving accrued by downsizing chunks of regular establishment and estate.
  13. i can't speak for big business , but HR and payroll in the NHS are devolved despite having a common staff database ('ESR' complete with 8 digit national id numbers ) common TACOS ( how many Foundation trusts have departed from AFC ? few if any)...
  14. Well, I can hardly let this one go by...

    It's a good idea, but there is a little more involved than just swapping the kit and asking people to get on with it... You have to factor in the substantial capital costs to upgrade facilities to cope with AS90 vs L118 or CR2 vs LR. On top of that, how many TACs are in locations that could cope with 50 tonne vehicles, either trundling up the local streets or in the TAC itself? You could base the bulk of facilities in industrial estates etc, but that again needs investment and a willingness to shift TAC locations. It would be interesting to hear how 101 Regt RA managed it with MLRS, but I don't detect much appetite for spend-to-save in the current climate.

    Using CS fitters is actually far cheaper than NRPS, almost two-for-one in some cases. But it comes with a downside of little incentive to over perform, lack of support to weekend or evening training etc.

  15. As far as I am aware, CHE in the UK exists only at Ashchurch (full) and Stirling (Closed & empty). To manage CHE sheds isn't particularly technically difficult, but getting the equipment to the highest of standards in preparation for CHE storage can be for a variety of reasons. You also have to factor in the cost of moving equipment (armour) to & from CHE to the trg area it is going to be used on because it would not be cost effective to locate it at most TACs I've seen. Maiontaining it would be difficult as most Civ Mechs and a lot of NRPS are not armour trained or if they are will not be up to date, and civvy armrs/techs?

    Simple solution (for eqpt) would be to store that eqpt that has the potential to be of use in a future conflict, CR2, Warrior & CVR(T), in Ayrshire Bks or Ashchurch after binning the older less useful kit off. I TA units have an armour role they should be included in a reg units trg programme so their camp is spent trg for their role (with no R&R, AT or any other crap included).