Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Merge the three Services

Yep. Recruitment and definitely KAPE. But the same goes for red arrows for the RAF as far as I am aware. BBMF was a bit different though. Little justification for that I would think. Personally I’d bin the reds tomorrow purely on the basis that the manpower they use is needed elsewhere and it would be a reality check for most of them.

BBMF pilots are all operational pilots employed elsewhere.
 

Polyester

War Hero
I don’t think anyone expected it to look like the IDF. More a case of “why, for the same number of airframes, do you need X, Y and Z?”. If the result is that X is saved and Y is reduced, but Z is binned, then the exercise would have been worth it.

But it’s hard when there’s no clear defence role to use as a benchmark.
Yep. fair enough.
 

Bob65

War Hero
However, the only way to significantly slim the defence budget without ‘salami slicing’ is to do less with less people.

I don't believe this is true - I believe the MoD (and the NHS for that matter) would be "fully funded" on the same budgets (or even less - not that I am advocating for a cut!) if only they could get their acts together on procurement.

Unfortunately I also believe that the chances of that happening are slim to none.
 

Polyester

War Hero
BBMF pilots are all operational pilots employed elsewhere.
Are you certain about that? I was labouring under the misapprehension that they were all FTRS and retired. Not that it matters, if what you are saying is the case then that backs up the point I was making. It costs too much to train crews (ground and air) to be fannying about with squadrons or flights that don’t contribute to defence. Recruitment and advertising can be achieved in other ways.
 
Yep. Recruitment and definitely KAPE. But the same goes for red arrows for the RAF as far as I am aware. BBMF was a bit different though. Little justification for that I would think. Personally I’d bin the reds tomorrow purely on the basis that the manpower they use is needed elsewhere and it would be a reality check for most of them.

BBMF is a wonderful thing. But it’s not a defence thing. Belongs with the IWM at Duxford.

As to the Recruitment/KAPE value, I’m unaware of any actual data to back that up. There might well be a value, but I’ve never seen anything to prove it outweighs the cost.

But it’s not just the armed forces. As part of my PhD research I tried looking into the distribution and quantity of fire fighting equipment in the London Fire Brigade (as was). I thought they might have had a better idea. Nope.

‘How do you allocate kit?’

‘We’ve got some stations, we spread it out’.

‘How do you budget?’

‘We take what we were given last year and add 3%’
 
I am a truckie not a stacker. As such I probably did more supply before you joined than you have actually done in your career. Sitting in a stores counting stuff - sorry stocktaking- is not supply.

Plenty of cam cream was used back in the day by the County Sqn RCT, likewise in BAOR. More latterly I grant you less demand operationally, but better folks than you obviously decided that the minuscule cost was worth it. Probably purely because they knew it would wind you up. For years.

What is the difference between training and trade training? Actually don't answer that. Your trade came from an entity that had forgotten so much basic soldiering that they had to employ specialist military training instructors as a separate trade.

As for answering questions, why could your job in uniform not be done by a contractor?


Which means your 34 years experience isnt really worth anything when it comes to supply and yet you still just dismissed the shoes issue. Supply isnt just driving stuff from A to B.


There you go again "better folk" you mean someone decided something at least 30 years ago and the army still do it because it always has. 30 years ago the Army used to ruin the life of gays and give women the choice of killing their unborn babies or losing there job, at some point in time the Army changed. Again it shows you dont think about things you just do them because thats the way it always has been.
Lets think about your justification for cam cream (now that you have dropped the embarrassing reason that it instills a martial purpose). You with your 34 years of experience, are telling people that the Army does something today because it did so 30+ years ago? Do you not understand how stupid that sounds?
As for the minuscule cost. Why do officers insist that because its a trivial amount (to them) that its not worth sorting out?

I assume you mean whats the main difference between a CT0/1/battle camp training and trade trading on CT2/3? What the **** did you do for the last 34 years? Sit in a dark, soundproofed room? I wonder how much money was wasted on exercises that you had control over with soldiers doing shit that had no relevance to what they had to learn.
If you were instructing soldiers on a battle camp would you stop to cram in a bit of MJDI training? Probably not, so why would you **** about in the middle of trade training?

You could probably find a contracting firm to do alot of the support arms jobs, you just need to pay them a fortune and/or not rely on them to either deploy at short notice or stay in a deployment area. Im surprised that someone with 34 years experience didnt know that.
 
Like this?







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I say, that does add panache and flair.

There should now be a committee on uniforms meeting to agree it.
 
Are you certain about that? I was labouring under the misapprehension that they were all FTRS and retired. Not that it matters, if what you are saying is the case then that backs up the point I was making. It costs too much to train crews (ground and air) to be fannying about with squadrons or flights that don’t contribute to defence. Recruitment and advertising can be achieved in other ways.


again - peanuts.

If you want savings, you chop entire fleets/capabilities/classes of ship and make the people associated redundant.
 

Polyester

War Hero

again - peanuts.

If you want savings, you chop entire fleets/capabilities/classes of ship and make the people associated redundant.
That’s really interesting. Thank you for enlightening me, I was utterly ignorant of this. Fair play to the aircrew giving up their spare time (I have my reservations as to whether that is strictly true) but I still stand by the idea that we need those ground crew on the squadrons. Like everyone, they are strapped for blokes.

So do you consider merging to be the answer?
 
The comments about shoes reminded me of an article I read about when Robert McNamara became defence secretary and thought that by applying his business skills he would 'get some efficiencies in' and cut costs in a bloated defence budget. If I recall, one of the questions he asked was why do the navy and army have different shoes? (it could have been air force and army and it could have been boots, my memory is failing) So he issued an edict, same shoes for both (or all) services.

The shoe change was fine, so were many others which in a bloated budget it was easy to achieve massive savings. But as I recall from the article, there were unintended negative consequences, and I'm frikkin unable to remember what they were which doesn't help. A quick check in Wiki and one of them I think was getting the navy and air force to develop a common fighter plane but it didn't work out for one or other of the service.

I note also he made the army choose the M16, though the balls up with it was more to do with the army's ordnance department f**kin it up.

I think the thrust of the article was, efficiency savings are good and necessary but you have to be careful about what you're slicing and how far you go. There are some reason why things were put in place that seem anachronistic now.

If it were taken to it's reductivist extreme, for example, why different uniforms for each service? I don't mean the operational gear, but for instance the different service dresses, regimentals and bits and bobs and doodas to hang off them. The IDF for instance when I see one of their senior officers on TV, they just seem to always be in shirt order only, no service dress and tie for them. But smart uniforms seem to be needed and the majority of armed forces have them.

And I'm staying out of the cam cream debate, especially since I wouldn't know what I'm on about.
 
And I'm staying out of the cam cream debate, especially since I wouldn't know what I'm on about.

Oh dont worry its all been explained, apparently the RCT did it decades ago so that why the RLC continue to do it. Not for any proper reason.
 
It's possible for someone in the Army to have very little experience of the infantry then get a posting with them after 20 years service, it doesn't matter much because that individual is doing their core role, not rallying bods once more into the breech.
All three services rotate in and out of NATO postings without much trouble.


Which may explain why elements of the Armed Forces are utterly sh*te at what are seen as non specialised roles.

Being brutally honest surely no one really believes dumping someone in a job with either a cursory HOTO from somone who's been doing that job for 2 years and no formal training process is a really clever idea ?

As for the idea that someone can attend a short course either months before or months after they start in a role and they can still do that role properly........
 
Which may explain why elements of the Armed Forces are utterly sh*te at what are seen as non specialised roles.

Being brutally honest surely no one really believes dumping someone in a job with either a cursory HOTO from somone who's been doing that job for 2 years and no formal training process is a really clever idea ?

As for the idea that someone can attend a short course either months before or months after they start in a role and they can still do that role properly........
Surely that is the point of generalist officers, we are not designed to fit anywhere and are therefore masters at everything. God help the RAF and RN if a merger did come about.
 
The question had already been raised when I was on the 4th Floor in ‘92. The answer was - in effect - “Yeah, well
However, the only way to significantly slim the defence budget without ‘salami slicing’ is to do less with less people. The only way to do that without destroying operational effectiveness is to properly define the role of defence and equip it accordingly.

I suspect if the politicians ever properly defined the role of the Armed Forces the response would be more along the lines "We can do this, this and this but that and that No, unless you spend more money"
 
Surely that is the point of generalist officers, we are not designed to fit anywhere and are therefore useless at most. God help the RAF and RN if a merger did come about.


On the basis of just procurement discussions on here relating to SLAM, FRES and Warrior upgrades I'd suggest the bolded words would be the correct response.
 
Which may explain why elements of the Armed Forces are utterly sh*te at what are seen as non specialised roles.

Being brutally honest surely no one really believes dumping someone in a job with either a cursory HOTO from somone who's been doing that job for 2 years and no formal training process is a really clever idea ?

As for the idea that someone can attend a short course either months before or months after they start in a role and they can still do that role properly........
Maybe but if your suggestion is that people stay in their comfort zone their whole career, the branches could still merge.
And most NATO positions would be shitcanned.
 
Surely that is the point of generalist officers, we are not designed to fit anywhere and are therefore masters at everything. God help the RAF and RN if a merger did come about.
Except we aren't.
We are just pretty poor at everything, but like to think we can do it.

To professionals in civilian organisations we are laughable

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

Polyester

War Hero
Except we aren't.
We are just pretty poor at everything, but like to think we can do it.

To professionals in civilian organisations we are laughable

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
Are you referring to generalist managers? (professionals). Apologies for what may appear to be a daft question but your statement carries a broad scope. For instance in the civilian world, ex forces instructing staff are valued, as are engineering staff of all three services across all ranks. I can think of others but don’t wish to labour my point.
 
Are you referring to generalist managers? (professionals). Apologies for what may appear to be a daft question but your statement carries a broad scope. For instance in the civilian world, ex forces instructing staff are valued, as are engineering staff of all three services across all ranks. I can think of others but don’t wish to labour my point.
I mean where we think we are generalists that can do specialist things

At least with Adjutants there is a course

But things like Int Officer for people to just step into without any training (there is some, but it isn't mandatory)

Engineers I'd count as specialists

I think we train people particularly well to think on their feet and adapt to situations, but not very well to genuinely do their jobs and set them up for success with pre employment training or CPD.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top