New Army recruitment campaign

I’m pretty sure DE&S has a box that must be ticked, DIO definitely do. Quite how you remove diesel from war fighting I don’t know, but we could start by removing logistics from the RLC, and maybe we’d get what we wanted when we needed it, got to be a cost saving in that???
TBH I’ve no idea how you remove diesel let alone explosives. And as for Trident...But we’re in a world where the global petroleum brands are going green.

My core point, I guess, is that the generation that is at school now is being educated to believe that that they’re in
 
If an item is COTS, then there are time and cost savings to be made. There's still the issue of what do we do if items have a long lead time, and we are likely to want them in a shorter timescale. There's also the problem of delivery to deployed units. Any cost savings you think you make by not having stores stored by storesmen (other genders are available) soon disappear when you ask UPS to fly out to Bahrain with a single (large) item.
Well, KBR didn’t do badly by paying Philippinos and Nepalese to cart stuff about in Afghanistan.
 
It doesnt look like it, even when they changed the definition of a trained soldier they are still below target (page 9)


Anyone else noticed that if you look at the excel spread sheets, stats for applications for all 3 services (Tables 9a-c), both Reg and Res, are absent from Sep 17 onwards.

In 01 Jan 19 edition, in notes:
Due to the introduction of the Defence Recruitment System, all 1 January 2018 (and 31 Dec 2017) data onwards is considered provisional and may be revised at a later date. Application data is also not available from 1 October onwards. Details on when these figures will be available again will follow in later editions of this publication. In order to preserve the legibility of the tables, 'p's have been placed at the top of every column for which data is provisional, and all figures within such columns should be considered subject to change.
In 01 Jul 19 where they've obviously culled the year so it doesn't look quite so bad:
Application data is also not available from 1 October onwards. Details on when these figures will be available again will follow in later editions of this publication.

DRS went live Oct/Nov 17. Surely after 2 years there'd be some stats on applications available?
 
Anyone else noticed that if you look at the excel spread sheets, stats for applications for all 3 services (Tables 9a-c), both Reg and Res, are absent from Sep 17 onwards.

In 01 Jan 19 edition, in notes:
Due to the introduction of the Defence Recruitment System, all 1 January 2018 (and 31 Dec 2017) data onwards is considered provisional and may be revised at a later date. Application data is also not available from 1 October onwards. Details on when these figures will be available again will follow in later editions of this publication. In order to preserve the legibility of the tables, 'p's have been placed at the top of every column for which data is provisional, and all figures within such columns should be considered subject to change.
In 01 Jul 19 where they've obviously culled the year so it doesn't look quite so bad:
Application data is also not available from 1 October onwards. Details on when these figures will be available again will follow in later editions of this publication.

DRS went live Oct/Nov 17. Surely after 2 years there'd be some stats on applications available?
Why bother, regardless of what is published, resident experts on this site would dismiss them if they didn't fit their narrative.

Anyway the o ly figure that counts as far as recruiting goes is Basic Training starts.

For regular officer, RMAS has been full for at least the last 3 intakes and for soldier, we got 60% of the ask last year and are on course for well over 90% this year.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
Oh and by the way, the article is a rehash of the one in the times and although the times one is more eloquently written, both are utter dogtoffee :)
What's the stats, inflow vs outflow?

Wasnt the outflow more than 9400 last year which is the inflow target this year?
 
What's the stats, inflow vs outflow?

Wasnt the outflow more than 9400 last year which is the inflow target this year?
The 9400 target is for regular soldiers only, in comparison I think the out flow for the soldiers was about 8100 from Apr 18 -Apr 19.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Oh and by the way, the article is a rehash of the one in the times and although the times one is more eloquently written, both are utter dogtoffee :)
You are obviously closer to this issue that I am and therefore your 'dogtoffee' comment must be taken as it is. However, you can't just come on and say that without explaining why it is so. Obviously you would only be able to give a general view as you don't want to give your anonymity away, but please clarify 'dogtoffee'.
 
The complete and utter debacle that was recruiting between 2012 and now?
As far as I am aware, absolutely no one in the Army. On the Capita side, several relativity senior executives including at least one higher than anyone in managing partnership. Additionally they have been financially penalised for not hitting KPI’s pretty much every month of the contract.
 
As far as I am aware, absolutely no one in the Army. On the Capita side, several relativity senior executives including at least one higher than anyone in managing partnership. Additionally they have been financially penalised for not hitting KPI’s pretty much every month of the contract.
That is self delusion at an incredible level. There were two sides to the contract Capita and the Army. The Army, being the customer retains responsibility. You clearly have no knowledge of the report by the Public Accounts Committee which apportions blame equally on both sides.

I know there must be a lot of back slapping going on at the moment but millions of pounds have been wasted in both spend and savings not realised but there are VSOs responsible for recruiting who have progressed through the highest ranks while initiating and managing failure.

I don't suppose the constant changes in job titles and command names over the same period had anything to do with obfuscation and a desire to dodge responsibility?
 
You are obviously closer to this issue that I am and therefore your 'dogtoffee' comment must be taken as it is. However, you can't just come on and say that without explaining why it is so. Obviously you would only be able to give a general view as you don't want to give your anonymity away, but please clarify 'dogtoffee'.
I think my cover was blown a long time ago :)

One example, and the main point of the headline. Since the inception of the contract we have had military personnel in every single careers office.

Part of the reset was to get rid of a lot of these (shall we say older, more experienced, to be kind) military, replace them with professional civilian recruiters and at the same time put younger military role models (the recruiting Corporal in the headline), individuals a candidate could relate too, in the offices to talk to candidates about the ‘lived experience’ as it is today.

Since the reset, we have actually reduced the number of military within the Recruiting Group establishment, however we have rather more younger regular soldiers and rather less older FTRS soldiers dealing with candidates.

The articles make out that we have flooded the organisation with military to dig the contractor out of a hole. The articles are wrong.

However, RMAS intakes remain full. Harrogate was full in September and is looking likely to be full in March and we look set to get almost 100% of the regular soldier target. We are still not hitting reserve targets though.

Obviously a full training engine creates other issues/problems, but that is probably for another post/thread :)
 

Latest Threads

Top