Renaming the TA

#1
#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.
 
#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
Why dont we just take this to its logical conclusion recruit more regulars?
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.
 
#11
Pork_Pie said:
So, the Army doesn't have much cash.

Yes, but its not quite that simple. The Army is still under recruited but the treasury only gives the army enough money to pay for its strength. Worse than that, the strength is based on a projection of how many people there should be at a given time. They've drawn a straight line graph showing manning from where we were a couple of years ago and full strength when we're meant to be there in a couple of years time. What's happened is that recruiting has gone really well over the last year and so we're ahead of the numbers we should have on that straight line graph for this financial year, although still under strength overall. Therefore not enough money. Theoretically I guess the treasury has had to make emergency payments to the MoD in order to ensure that the blokes that have been over recruited actually get paid, but I don't know about that!
Sorry if that's all a bit dull, but it explains some of the pressures I guess...
 
#12
Kermit said:
Pork_Pie said:
So, the Army doesn't have much cash.

Yes, but its not quite that simple. The Army is still under recruited but the treasury only gives the army enough money to pay for its strength. Worse than that, the strength is based on a projection of how many people there should be at a given time. They've drawn a straight line graph showing manning from where we were a couple of years ago and full strength when we're meant to be there in a couple of years time. What's happened is that recruiting has gone really well over the last year and so we're ahead of the numbers we should have on that straight line graph for this financial year, although still under strength overall. Therefore not enough money. Theoretically I guess the treasury has had to make emergency payments to the MoD in order to ensure that the blokes that have been over recruited actually get paid, but I don't know about that!
Sorry if that's all a bit dull, but it explains some of the pressures I guess...
Thanks for that Kermit. Not sure that the MoD should have agreed that the expansion, and accompanying funding, should have been on the linear basis you described, but who am I to argue with their decisions?

Re HMT funding, although expenditure levels are set at the start of the financial year, there are three chances in the yr to get Parliament to vote for more funding (supplementaries, I belive ethey are called). These would normally be used, rather than emergency funding. I suspect that I'm getting off the thread a bit here!

However, I think that my main original point - that frequent use of called up reservists can be more expensive than using regulars - remains valid.
 
#13
I often think the cartoon character Dilbert has more in common with the armed forces than it's creator thought about.
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.

THERE ARE NO SACRED COWS - START CULLING!!! :twisted:
 
#15
If this means a smaller Air Force
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.
 
#16
Blessed are the cheesemakers! :wink:
 
#17
The reserve e.g. the TA has played an excellent part in recent ops, the fact that FTRS will be cut means that the TA will lose certain (real time qualifications) from op tours. We all know that op tours for regs are a release from the day to day drudgery from working on camp, however for the TA it is an excellent insight to how crisis management works. I have worked with, and still work with members of the TA, most are excellent and not only need to be involved, they want to be involved. There are (like regulars) some who dont give a toss, but you rarely find them on op tours (they want to be there)!! so
stand by here is the solution if you want a strong TA reserve then this is what has to happen
Remove 90% of the TA senior ranks (They are too used to getting p***ed, on a weekend and getting paid for it, this is historical, a legacy from when they joined), continue to train and promote the current members who want to get involved, and get them away from the, weekend on the p**s ethos and into the 'ONE ARMY FOR ALL'

This in not an end statement, simply one intended to raise discussion
Dont forget if you want to answer make sure you have passe ITD 1-5 and are Fit For Role
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Hmmm. It's great that you have worked with the TA, and seem to appreciate what we can do, but there are a couple of misconceptions here.

Firstly, getting rid of 90% of the SNCOs - why not do the same in the Regs, then? Same answer in the TA - without the SNCOs, nothing would get done - simple as that. Even if some think that they are unlikely to be deployed (which is in itself doubtful - we came out with 12 SNCOs out of 44 deployed) then someone still has to organise training, do the admin, etc. Training in a TA Unit is not like regs - it can't be. We do our own recruiting, cooking, paying, and even large aspects of basic training, let alone trade training. Without lots of dedicated SNCOs we're fecked.

As to them being used to spending all weekend on the piss - that just isn't the case these days - well, certianly not in most Units. There are times for getting drunk, and times for training, and everyone knows the difference. Good job Regs never get drunk at weekends :wink:

Also, training at wekends is what it says on the tin - Weekends. That means working from Mon to Fri, straight in on Fri evening, out in the Vehicles, and back home Sunday evening. I've frequently done three weekends on the trot, which means four weeks working without a day off, let alone a chance to see the Kids. You need plenty of 'social' occasions with the TA - often, you'll find they're the only mates you've got - no time for anyone else!
 
#19
1920 said:
So stand by here is the solution if you want a strong TA reserve then this is what has to happen:
Remove 90% of the TA senior ranks, continue to train and promote the current members who want to get involved, and get them away from the, weekend on the p**s ethos and into the 'ONE ARMY FOR ALL'
I've been in the TA for nearly twenty years. As a yoof, and roughly every three years ever since, someone at several-star-and-upwards level has stood up and said something along the lines of:

"We've got to make the TA more relevant. We're going to make it more serious. We're going to equip it more in line with Regular troops. We're going to make the training harder and more effective"

Strange, that. It has shades of "I know the Army's going downhill; my Dad told me so, and his Dad told him".

Anyway, back to the subject.

If you want an effective Reserve component (ooooh, an Americanism) then you do the following:

- take the percentage of TA soldiers who traditionally do FTRS (about 10%)
- calculate what number of FTRS posts you need in the medium term, given operational commitments (say, about 4000, give or take; I'm thinking typical numbers pre-TELIC)
- Multiply the two to give you a TA big enough to supply your FTRS needs.

It probably works out at about 40000 or so. Less than that, and TA centres are too far apart, or have too little mass to conduct interesting training that makes for good recruiting/retention.

If you assume a certain amount of time lag (you can't just create a new unit and all of its kit, buildings, and heirarchy overnight) and assume a certain amount of slack for those.....mass callout situations (because if people have been called up, they won't be doing FTRS for a while) you add a little more. The point is that it's easy to cut units, bloody hard to build them back up two years later.

So anyone who suggests "cutting the TA to make it more effective" has to realise that the only way it will work is if they can somehow raise the proportion of people in the TA who do FTRS. Bear in mind that a lower proportion of the TA are unemployed than in the population as a whole.....

PS As for "One Army", how come as a TA shooter I'm not eligible to compete in a Combined Services team?
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#20
Gravelbelly said:
PS As for "One Army", how come as a TA shooter I'm not eligible to compete in a Combined Services team?
Just the same as the TA cannot do the Army Lottery or enter the majority of sporting inter-corps competitions. Probably because the TA would win them! That would be the reason why you cannot be on the CS shooting team.

Just for info, 38% of deployed soldiers on Telic are TA or reservists called-up. More than 1 in 3. One unit is 100% TA.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top