Merge the three Services


There’s a Sikh padre in the RAF and a Rabbi in the Army for you, the matelot is a Presbyterian. These three were the padres for last year’s remembrance service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would they be for me?

however a quick google reveals that Mattb told a fib

 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
You miss the point entirely. Do you think HQ are stuffed full of Officers alone?

Why do you assume it's top down? Sure we get strategic direction but that's called leadership. Then we crack on under our own steam to realise change.
You were the one who mentioned officers of OF4 in and HQ not me....

In any event, the vast majority of Army WOs and SNCOs never serve beyond regimental duty. Most never even serve in a Battalion / Regimental HQ unless they achieve one of the top Warrant Officer roles.

There is near zero understanding of the true costs of activities at unit level in the Army let alone management of them.
 

Mattb

LE
sacked off 16 regt and replaced us all with civvies. Who are on double bubble on the weekend and wont do anything outside of their core role.
There are often other hidden problems with civilianisation too, such as the RN logic on chefs:
"Sailors are much more expensive than civvies, let's replace all chefs on shore establishments with civvies and then have RN chefs at sea all the time"

"Why are all the chefs burnt-out?"
 

Truxx

LE
There are often other hidden problems with civilianisation too, such as the RN logic on chefs:
"Sailors are much more expensive than civvies, let's replace all chefs on shore establishments with civvies and then have RN chefs at sea all the time"

"Why are all the chefs burnt-out?"
I think this us a good example of where what looks like a Good Idea from one end of the telescope is actually anything but.

The trick though is to be able to articulate that up front rather than realise it when it is all too late.
 
There are often other hidden problems with civilianisation too, such as the RN logic on chefs:
"Sailors are much more expensive than civvies, let's replace all chefs on shore establishments with civvies and then have RN chefs at sea all the time"

"Why are all the chefs burnt-out?"
I did point out something similar to Jim30 (he's got a blog y'know) he basically said the civvies can do all the easy jobs and the Suaddies can get fucked around.
 
I think this us a good example of where what looks like a Good Idea from one end of the telescope is actually anything but.

The trick though is to be able to articulate that up front rather than realise it when it is all too late.
Says the man who earlier posted that a civvie contractor would easily take my place when I was serving.
 
I think this us a good example of where what looks like a Good Idea from one end of the telescope is actually anything but.

The trick though is to be able to articulate that up front rather than realise it when it is all too late.
Says the man who earlier posted that a civvie contractor would easily take my place when I was serving.
This has been a public service announcement.
 
...
"Sailors are much more expensive than civvies, let's replace all chefs on shore establishments with civvies and then have RN chefs at sea all the time"

"Why are all the chefs burnt-out?"
So the new model Army & Navy would fix this. Two years on a boat, two years feeding pilots, four years feeding soldiers.
 
You were the one who mentioned officers of OF4 in and HQ not me....

In any event, the vast majority of Army WOs and SNCOs never serve beyond regimental duty. Most never even serve in a Battalion / Regimental HQ unless they achieve one of the top Warrant Officer roles.

There is near zero understanding of the true costs of activities at unit level in the Army let alone management of them.
Why does there need to be ?

As an Infantry Pte / JNCO / SNCO / WO, cost of activities ( less Platoon / Company functions ) are not my concern.

I couldn't really care less what a Unit's budget is, or how much it costs per annum.

If I have a valid need, I put a demand in. That demand is either produced or a reason supplied as to why it is not produced.

The 2 main players in the true cost of activities at Infantry Unit level would be the 2 x QM's, who in the main, have progressed through the ranks and been commissioned as LE Officers. Not too many DE Officers kicking about as Infantry QM's.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
You were the one who mentioned officers of OF4 in and HQ not me....

In any event, the vast majority of Army WOs and SNCOs never serve beyond regimental duty. Most never even serve in a Battalion / Regimental HQ unless they achieve one of the top Warrant Officer roles.

There is near zero understanding of the true costs of activities at unit level in the Army let alone management of them.
I said if you were OF4/5 you'd be exposed all the time, didn't say they were the only people and if you go into DE&S a lot of the commodity managers are SR and CS. NMS created waves of people who have to be interested in the figures. There are plenty of Army SNCOs in DE&S and LAND HQ, I bump into them all the time on my travels.

At unit level, say a T23, or an Inf Bn, they should be less interested in costs and more interested in effectiveness as neither CO has the delegations nor commercial levers to make a significant difference against a cost base. I'd hope they were more interested in effectiveness and efficiency in how they achieve their tasking.
 
At unit level, say a T23, or an Inf Bn, they should be less interested in costs and more interested in effectiveness as neither CO has the delegations nor commercial levers to make a significant difference against a cost base. I'd hope they were more interested in effectiveness and efficiency in how they achieve their tasking.
Although effectiveness should be the priority, cost should be a major consideration, because a lack of money is going to lead to a lack of effectiveness.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
Although effectiveness should be the priority, cost should be a major consideration, because a lack of money is going to lead to a lack of effectiveness.
How does a CO of an Inf Bn manage costs? Personnel costs will be 80-90% of his units cost base, the infra and I suspect vehicles won't even be attributed to him. The same goes pretty much for a T23/T45 CO.

They have very few levers that affect real costs. Unless you can think of some I can't?
 

Mattb

LE
So the new model Army & Navy would fix this. Two years on a boat, two years feeding pilots, four years feeding soldiers.
Given the need to employ RLC and RAF chefs/stewards on ships to make up for the lack of sailors to do the job, I'd say we're pretty much there already.
 
Given the need to employ RLC and RAF chefs/stewards on ships to make up for the lack of sailors to do the job, I'd say we're pretty much there already.
They're there to feed the pilots and soldiers.
 
How does a CO of an Inf Bn manage costs? Personnel costs will be 80-90% of his units cost base, the infra and I suspect vehicles won't even be attributed to him. The same goes pretty much for a T23/T45 CO.

They have very few levers that affect real costs. Unless you can think of some I can't?
He should concentrate on what he can directly affect and be mindful of where he can influence the other indirectly.
I've been on exercise that the last few days **** all is happening and everyone is sat with their thumb up their arse. That's tens of thousands down the tube in LSA payments. I think I'm right in saying that LSA payments are not reflected in the units budget but that doesn't mean the CO cant take a command decision a save the Army money.
Little things like paying mma for using your own car rather than a duty vehicle. Raises morale costs nothing to implement, saves money in the long run.
I wouldnt expect a CO to become a money saving expert but they should try where they can.
 

Latest Threads

Top