RLC in the news a lot

Discussion in 'RLC' started by Herrumph, Oct 6, 2009.

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. 2 big stories in the news concerning RLC types this week.

    I would have thought it merited a mention in the RLC corner of the Forum?

    Well done to both for very positive stories.
  2. I suggest this has more to do with the presence of RE in the EOD CoC.

    or maybe the Bomb Gods have had a change of policy...?

    Remember, an AT is for life, not just for a tour..
  3. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott … -21723687/
  4. ......or perhaps the RE will become responsible for the AT Trade once the RLC is re-organised post forthcoming SDR.
  5. Which would make no sense at all considering AT/ATO responsibilities beyond IEDD/EOD.
  6. An argument which would have stood up to scrutiny 20 years ago when only 10% of trade was involved in EOD of any sort.

    Hardly any ATOs/ATs are left in base organisation, a few left doing Inspectorate duties when not stagging on manning UK Dets or rotating through Op EOD tours. Senior operational managers of Ammunition trade are already firmly embedded in RE chain of command whilst most of RLC hierarchy is completely indifferent to technical aspects of ammunition management.

    Assimilation is inevitable in due course.
  7. Is resistance futile? :(
  8. Herrumph - wow, so after 16 years of utter indifference to the rest of the RLC do ATs suddenly want to be in the Corps?

    Not sure Sappers want ATs - I think they want your jobs and will do it using Sappers. Where that would leave the AT trade is a different issue.

    I know the RLC has a big push on to ensure the capability is properly understood and that the Corps remains responsible for the technical aspects.

    But as you say, a defence review might find other solutions.
  9. It well might.

    The key question to answer is 'What is the RLC for". Certainly, if it were to be designed today from a blank sheet, many of the current functions would simply not be included.

    The bottom line is that many current RLC functions could be easily txd and absorbed into other Arms and Services, including, but not restricted to:

    Movers to RAF
    Pet Ops to RE (already responsible for TFHE)
    Posties to AGC.
    Port Sqns to RN/RM
    Pioneers to RE/Inf

    Conversely, there may be capabilities that may best be aggregated and txd to the RLC. The bottom line is that capability should be managed as a single entity, whereever appropriate, and not in discrete bites.

    End state. Capability maintained but with headcount efficiencies.
  10. Have always been responsible for TFHE(S) or for the oldies -the W7 catalogue. I am actually hoping that this is the way ahead. It makes perfect sense apart from where does Receipt Storage, Assurance, Issue fit into a RE's job description. Fuel is not an Engineer log item (or it wasn't the last time I checked).

    Maybe the RE would be able to get the lads some qualifications via the appropriate awarding bodies unlike the RLC which has had 16 yrs to come up with the sum total of FA. I witnessed Pet Ops being co-erced into completeing NVQ 2 in warehousing and apprenticeships in Driving.

    Other ones to consider are:

    RE Dvrs - RLC
    RAF Suppliers to RLC
    RAF Dvr's to RLC
    RAF rotary wing techies to REME Avionics techs
    RAF signals to RSigs
    RAF Bomb Disposal to RE/ RLC
    RAF chefs to RLC
    RAF medical services to RAMC etc
    RAF Police to RMP

    There's a pattern emerging here...... and I haven't even suggested moving fast air to the Fleet Air Arm!

    TSW- disband, all functions can be carried out by the proposed all new shiney Pet Op RE! Preffered choice of refueller my big fat Pet Op Arrse!!!!!!!

    Movers - disband and put out to contract, I defy anyone to explain why this can't happen? They have to send their washing forward FFS.
  11. Interesting to note however the rise in importance of ATSG at Kineton, and the ever increasing demand for AT/AS in the ammo tech support role...

    I am just waiting to see how long it takes before someone realises that AT support might just make some considerable saving in the ammunition budget...!
  12. HE - quite right. The RE want EOD - they do not want anything to do with ammo. As for AT support saving cash, happening now.

    Senior offrs in Corps are interested in technical ammo management - could it be that AT trade suffering twenty years of insular EOD focus?

    EOD role to RE?

    RLC trade of Ammunition Examiner anyone?
  13. I would be the last to dismiss the importance of AT support, but when there has been a marked shift towards direct delivery from factory to users it is hard to see where and when the AT/AS(!) will look after the ammunition.

    Once the posties, movers, pet ops, port ops and pioneers have gone what is left the RLC? De-skilled suppliers and drivers.

    Those senior officers from teeth arms might argue that storeman and driving skills are well provided for from within the teeth arms. Once you become a Corps of generalists your role can be taken by all arms generalists.
  14. Herrumph - do not think anyone is looking to offload any capability.

    Cannot see any infantry Regt Col being keen on 650 of 1 Loamshires forming a Queens Div Supply Regiment any time soon! The Corps is a mix of generalists and specialists. But specialist does not equal special and if the view is taken that the capability is no longer relevant or required, then it will go.
  15. Strange, but what I remember is being told was that EOD was not Corps (or core) business. Our focus needed to be close ammunition support or whatever the latest buzz phrase was deemed to be. Squadrons dropping the EOD from titles and correct emphasis placed on support to the green army, especially when briefing the police (FFS!). That message allegedly came straight from the top - the head of our trade.

    Look at the good it did us.

    It was then followed by dumbing down training and standards because high threat EOD was a historical legacy, won't be needed again. Those most closely involved with EOD did tend to be a little insular and even obsessively focussed on the subject. Hard not to be when your soldiers are involved in manual approaches on a daily basis.

    Ammunition support has always been equally important to most ATO/ATs. Most of us will bore people to death on explosive safety given a chance. I wish it was seen as being as important to other RLC officers who have some of the most cavalier attitudes I ever experienced. Far worse than most other arms and services; their glib careless atttiude normally based on their extensive training back on their YO or Captains Course.