Management Information for the TA review

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by msr, Apr 19, 2008.

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. msr

    msr LE

    I would love to see what they are using as a recent FOI request has come back stating that HQ Land Command have no idea how many officers the TA should have, how many they actually have or when they last trained...

  2. TA officers have always been a mystery to me aswell. At least now it's official.
  3. Seems a little odd as it's basic Maths!

    But then hey, they run budgets as well and we all know how well they do that......
  4. You will recall the key stated themes of the review:

    a. How best to refine the balance between the Regular and Reserve forces with a view to providing the required levels of capability and readiness.

    b. Options for closer integration of Reserves and Regular units to gain greater utility of Reservists at all scales of operations.

    c. How to capitalize on reservists’ civilian skills with the consent of the reservist and their civilian employer where appropriate.

    d. Which niche capabilities might best be filled by the Volunteer Reserves, particularly in the light of current operations.

    e. The degree to which Reservists should be used in stabilization tasks – supporting one of the key implications for Defence arising from the recently published National Security Strategy.

    f. Improvements to the CCRF concept with a view to providing a flexible tool that ensures the optimum use of Reservists in times of crisis at home, without affecting their utility for primary overseas tasking.

    g. The continued validity of current SR and FTRS models within the Illustrative framework defined in Future Reserves.

    h. The degree to which reservists can be managed flexibly and, outside niche capabilities, integrated with their Regular counterparts where possible – we should seek to minimize the duplication of overheads in infrastructure, training delivery and the chain of command.

    None of which refer to, or relate to, either directly or indirectly, recruited stength, systemic problems with Officers and pinch point trades, nor the structure and support of the TA in it's wider sense. One could argue that they are included , by implication, but it's hard to see how this review (with its stated TORs - believe them if you will) will address the TA's priorities - it's almost wholly regular centric.
  5. When I was serving it was standard procedure to check for your wallet whenever a regular soldier mentioned the 'one army concept' as it always preceded the regular demanding something. The review's themes make solid sense - so far as they go but, as ever, ignore the unsaid elements in Mr Tracey's final para which are so critical to having a functioning reserve in the first place.

    Sadly I suspect that this review will be a cuts exercise in another guise - no different to those since 1990 (remember the 1986 review which actually increased numbers?) but that given the residual goodwill, skills and manpower in the system it'll take a few years before the true damage becomes evident...
  6. Cuts? Good God man - perish the thought.

    This is just about realignment and value for money.

  7. msr

    msr LE

    Well, we had a very interesting speech last night after the TA100 celebration dinner at Manchester Town Hall from Lt Gen Nick Parker (Commander Regional Forces) who seemed to imply that cuts were not in the offing.

    P.S. The Gurkha band were fantastic
  8. Did you ask him when TAQ3 was coming out? He probably would have told you to ask your SPSI :wink:
  9. msr

    msr LE

    Sadly they whisked him away before I could poke my finger in his chest :)

  10. ...he said much the same in Birmingham two weeks ago at another TA 100 event. The band there were fantastic too.

    My concern is that whilst he is no doubt well connected, he is simply an input to the review. Cuts may not be on the agenda, but they may be on the recommendation.
  11. Do you not think a small amount of re-badging, with a few units changing role, is more likely than cuts? Given the value for money that the TA provide.

    I suspect that the changes maybe more to do with terms of service than anything else. Though, I await the results with a morbid sense of curiosity :twisted:
  12. Thats what I expect but recapbadging may not be small. Some corps/arms like the infantry have a ratio of 1 TA to 3 Regular units, in medics its 2:1 both have sent a large number of soldiers on ops. In others such as sigs its about 1:1.5 and I believe Sigs are sending fewer soldiers on ops partly because the skill gap is quite large.

    I expect the infantry to be formally given a force protection role within both forward areas of ARRC and the RCZ (or remf zone). This allows soldiers/bns to continue to be IR's or Force Protection Coys on current ops.
  13. I expect there to be cuts. There has to be an election in 18 months and new Labour needs money to make announcements in Education and Health. That the TA offers value for money has little to do with it. The Treasury ( and future Prime Minister Ed Balls) see the MOD as a piggy bank to fund elections. That they will hand the Tories a poisioned chalice of a broken Army fighting two wars is even better.
  14. Our PM couldn't really be Balls could he?!

    ...sorry it was too obvious... I couldn't stop myself
  15. Hmmmn its not like they couldn't find a TA band now is it, I believe one lives under your stairs. :D