Renaming the TA

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by msr, Nov 10, 2003.

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

  2. If they intend cutting the numbers by over 25% and make more use of us alongside the regulars they are going to have to seriously look at the large number of TA soldiers that are not good enough or would refuse to be called on to do their jobs. We all know plenty of them, but they all still seam to get their CO's efficiency certificate. If they don't address this, all that will happen is worse manpower problems on deployment for all the army as a whole.
  3. Why dont we just take this to its logical conclusion recruit more regulars?
  4. Then we would have too many in non-conflict periods. I am not sure about the attaching to units idea, but it may lead to the TA getting a better deal when they get called up, not getting pissed about.
  5. We already operate a pairing system, within an over all TA Regtl structure. From what I have heard we had thebest experiance of Telic, partially because we had an existing relationship with our Regular unit.
  6. Because soldiers are expensive and so is the infrastructure to support them. Using the reserves is alot like having a throwaway army. You don't have to pay them when not in use, house them, feed them, or keep them healthy. In the end it's just cost cutting under another 'streamlining' tag.
    I often think the cartoon character Dilbert has more in common with the armed forces than it's creator thought about.
  7. The Times article talked about streamlining the TA to a new level of 30,000 - we all know that we don't have that many regular attenders in the TA even with its strength set at 41,000. Reducing numbers means closing more TA centres and therefore reducing the geographical footprint that the TA has, making it even harder to recruit. Many left after the last round of cuts because it became too far to travel for them. My view is that if this goes ahead it will be because no lessons were learnt from the last time. It'll also prove what we all know, namely that this is driven by the Treasury and not by consideration of the strategy that the TA is designed to support.
  8. [/quote]Because soldiers are expensive and so is the infrastructure to support them. Using the reserves is alot like having a throwaway army. [/quote]

    Reserves are cheap when they're not being used. However, if we're getting called up regularly, then we're going to be expensive. Instead of just paying out the appropriate salary for the grade, a lot of additional compensation and expenses will be involved. This is also ignoring the costs of higher turnover, which would probably follow from a TA/ reserve that was regularly mobilized.

    Also, who's going to do FTRS, if they expect to be called up in the next 18 months anyway? Far fewer people than at present, leading to more holes in staffing levels.
  9. Well no one is going to be doing FTRS for a while given that they're not issuing new FTRS contracts until at least April 04 due to budgetry constraints. existing contracts are being honoured and voluntary mob on op tours is unaffected. Hey ho.
  10. So, the Army doesn't have much cash.

    How to respond?

    By scrapping the cheapest way of involving reservists, but continuing to involve others in an expensive way.

    Nice to see common sense prevailing.
  13. Certainly Catbert seems to have a hand in much MOD policy.
    The armed forces, great big multi layered beauracracies filled with apparatchiks. Dilberts company, ditto. Perhaps he was more thoughtful than were giving him credit for.......

    Q. What is to stop those who are 'streamlined' being the useful fraction?
  14. I'm afraid the bottom line must be that the Armed Forces (both Regular and Reserves) must conform to whatever is the perceived requirement of National defence at any particular time. Too many reviews in the pastr have paid lip service to this because of the strong Regimental/TAVR parliamentary lobbies.

    This is all bollox. Design the Armed Forces around the perceived requirement, cut the cloth accordingly AND RESOURCE IT! If this means a smaller Air Force and Navy and less Inf/Armd Corps, less TA, more loggies, and a leaner, more deployable hard core of territorials then HURRAY! As long as those currently serving are looked after properly, why should we worry that 1 Blankshires (and their twinned Regiment, 5 Blankshires) go to the wall if it means that the units that remain in the ORBAT can be properly resourced.

  15. RangiRam

    just scrap the CRABS fullstop. Maritime search/patrol, UK airdefence, go to RN.

    JHF and troop transport go to AAC, or Army aviation as a larger entity.

    Sell off, or move people into RAF bases. Get rid of the bureaucrats in uniform. Offer the groundies and aircrew transfers to Units they can fly in etc.

    Scrap Eurofighter/Typhoon.Whats the point of it anyway, when JSF is on the way.

    Raf REGT can all go and get a job with Group4, and suck each other off.Just to keep them doing what theyre paid for at the moment.