Reserve Forces 30 report published

gets popcorn, awaits STAB vs ARAB in-fighting over who is more irrelevant; whilst the RN just ignores the RNR and the RAF and RAuxAF do whatever they do...
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
A few pages in and I'm thinking "weren't we saying most of this ten years ago?"

Obviously almost everyone involved in Future Reserves 2020 has moved on, so it's time to republish it with a new date on the cover...
 
whoever wrote the vignette at the end of chapter 2 is a) on crack and b) has never been to sea.
 
Have given this a read through, in summary no real changes proposed of any substance as far as I can see. Some common sense observations, some make less sense. Plus the general sense that the study has spent more time speaking to the 'full time reservists' who use it as their main form of employment than the vast majority who actually have jobs to do.

Had to laugh at the bit where it stated that mobilisations being switched off could lead to a 'loss of goodwill' between reservist and employer. Someone I know got sacked off the back of this last year.

I can see an uphill struggle in implementing some of the recommendations, such as harmonising regular/reserve headcount targets. The report can recommend things, but I doubt very much that all will be accepted. Quite a few will probably quietly fade into the background.

Interesting that a CTRL+F brings up no less than 26 mentions of 'cyber' and 3 mentions of 'infantry'. While the former is a buzz word bingo selection du jour, it does highlight where the reserves in the round has been adding value in relative terms; specialist skills. Where this leaves large parts of the army reserves, is uncertain.
 
You didn't need to get that far to find someone on something more than wacky baccy:

The Strategic Reserve will add further depth to the contingent capability. Built around the ex-regular reserve forces, it will be able to generate previously unassigned surge capacity and wider access to expertise in time of crisis or national emergency.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
whoever wrote the vignette at the end of chapter 2 is a) on crack and b) has never been to sea.

I've been to sea, it's easy. Can't see what the fuss is about. Two days of EFSSC and you're good to go, innit?
 
Have given this a read through, in summary no real changes proposed of any substance as far as I can see. Some common sense observations, some make less sense. Plus the general sense that the study has spent more time speaking to the 'full time reservists' who use it as their main form of employment than the vast majority who actually have jobs to do.

Had to laugh at the bit where it stated that mobilisations being switched off could lead to a 'loss of goodwill' between reservist and employer. Someone I know got sacked off the back of this last year.

I can see an uphill struggle in implementing some of the recommendations, such as harmonising regular/reserve headcount targets. The report can recommend things, but I doubt very much that all will be accepted. Quite a few will probably quietly fade into the background.

Interesting that a CTRL+F brings up no less than 26 mentions of 'cyber' and 3 mentions of 'infantry'. While the former is a buzz word bingo selection du jour, it does highlight where the reserves in the round has been adding value in relative terms; specialist skills. Where this leaves large parts of the army reserves, is uncertain.

Disgraceful.
 
Interesting that a CTRL+F brings up no less than 26 mentions of 'cyber' and 3 mentions of 'infantry'. While the former is a buzz word bingo selection du jour, it does highlight where the reserves in the round has been adding value in relative terms; specialist skills. Where this leaves large parts of the army reserves, is uncertain.

In the Regional Reserve I would say that is very capbadge dependent; useful RE, RSIGNALS, RLC, REME and AMS, less useful INF, CAV, RA, (+AAC?)
 
30? The real number of reserves available to deploy?
 

Latest Threads

Top