Royal Navy Manning - Extreme Solutions Being Tried

Double my wages (as an extreme example for emphasis) and I'll put up with a lot more inconvenience/grief...
It's a spread bet. For double the pay, almost everyone would stay, which would bring its own problems. I'm sure there are plenty who would stay for a measly 10% uplift, probably still too many. So, where to pitch it to retain the right numbers of the right people? And that is where Recruitment & Retention pay comes in. (There was a particular cadre recently who had a carrot of an uplift of 17% of basic pay through a new RRP.)
 
...I simply offer the facts..... If you want to increase this chunk something else will most likely have reduce!
Assuming Defence spending will not increase in real terms, my view is something needs to reduce to improve our infra and TCoS lot.

We can have all the FFGs, marching bands and P-8s in the World, but if we can't recruit and retain the people to man them, what's the point?

Regards,
MM
 
Assuming Defence spending will not increase in real terms, my view is something needs to reduce to improve our infra and TCoS lot.

We can have all the FFGs, marching bands and P-8s in the World, but if we can't recruit and retain the people to man them, what's the point?

Regards,
MM
My simple point would be to reduce the level of operational commitment, across the board...
 
I don't believe we will see any reduction in ambition, politically, to use Defense as a tool, particularly for shorter less intrusive interventions that will in reality be anything but short.
I would disagree, substantially.

The SoS' comments this afternoon recognised that if you want to prepare for something, you actually need to prepare for it, not hold it at risk against a triple or quadruple hatted unit. This is not the first time I've heard this view from people who have the ability to reduce our operational commitments.
 
I would disagree, substantially.

The SoS' comments this afternoon recognised that if you want to prepare for something, you actually need to prepare for it, not hold it at risk against a triple or quadruple hatted unit. This is not the first time I've heard this view from people who have the ability to reduce our operational commitments.
To be fair though Alfred, it wouldn't be the first time one of our elected Lords & Masters said one thing whilst thinking / planning another.

I'm with MM on the infra thing - I'd far rather we reduced our F35 purchase by one airframe and invested that money in suitable working & living accommodation for the lads & lasses shore-side, or in garrison. Overly simplistic, and 'diff'rent budgets Guv!!' I know......................
 
How was the shortage of technical ratings and officers dealt with in WWII?
Conscription and recall to the colours
 
To be fair though Alfred, it wouldn't be the first time one of our elected Lords & Masters said one thing whilst thinking / planning another.

I'm with MM on the infra thing - I'd far rather we reduced our F35 purchase by one airframe and invested that money in suitable working & living accommodation for the lads & lasses shore-side, or in garrison. Overly simplistic, and 'diff'rent budgets Guv!!' I know......................
the drawback being we have proof that deploying units makes them less combat ready.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
I would disagree, substantially.

The SoS' comments this afternoon recognised that if you want to prepare for something, you actually need to prepare for it, not hold it at risk against a triple or quadruple hatted unit. This is not the first time I've heard this view from people who have the ability to reduce our operational commitments.
Having read something entirely contradictory earlier today, I'll stick to what I posted.
 
Not so long ago I bumped into a US Coast guard Marine mechanic on a 3 year loan to the RN . Outsourcing or what !
I've recently mentored one for a couple of weeks. Very keen, obviously enjoying the change in working environment whilst appreciating the investment the USCG had made in his personal development. Not to mention a very generous relocation package. Perhaps if the RN was offering something similar there wouldn't be such a retention problem?
 
the drawback being we have proof that deploying units makes them less combat ready.
If our units are not for deploying on operational tasks as laid down by HMG, then what is the very point of them?
 
the drawback being we have proof that deploying units makes them less combat ready.
If our units are not for deploying on operational tasks as laid down by HMG, then what is the very point of them?
Have a think about it: being in the Middle East on a nine monther means nine months not on JW, not doing OST, lack of instrumented ranges, no externally assessed simulators.

There is a world of difference between being ready for any deployment, or a specific deployment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Have a think about it: being in the Middle East on a nine monther means nine months not on JW, not doing OST, lack of instrumented ranges, no externally assessed simulators.

There is a world of difference between being ready for any deployment, or a specific deployment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And therein lies part of the problem in so far as outlook goes, methinks.

In a time of finite resource, when HMG intend (whether we like it or not) assisting in the global policeman role, we are going to be mandated for those tasks which don't keep you at home doing Thursday Wars, CASEX-es, JW etc.

That will, like it or not, have an effect upon our readiness for other tasks - it just will. So (as I see it) the question then becomes "Do we exist to train for a maximal envelope of threats & scenarios, accepting from the get-go that 90% of them will never happen, or do we conduct those tasks that we are directed to by our elected representatives and accept that this will have an effect upon our status of 'less than combat ready'
(sic)"

I know where the smart money lies...............
 
..."Do we exist to train for a maximal envelope of threats & scenarios, accepting from the get-go that 90% of them will never happen, or do we conduct those tasks that we are directed to by our elected representatives and accept that this will have an effect upon our status of 'less than combat ready'
(sic)"

I know where the smart money lies...............
Unfortunately, politicians rarely appreciate that 90% of scenarios never happen precisely because we train for and maintain credible deterrence in dealing with them.

Regards,
MM
 
Unfortunately, politicians rarely appreciate that 90% of scenarios never happen precisely because we train for and maintain credible deterrence in dealing with them.

Regards,
MM
So,if we can do both (train for the 90% and conduct discretionary operations) what's there to complain about........??

Tongue, cheek, very firmly in.
 
I think that the flap to recruit suitible candidates for the Engneering Branch continues, to the extent that Ch4 ran the advert aimed at the chap who can fix a skateboard can fix anything up to and including the Lynx 8 again today.

Which would be handy if we still had any.
 
I think that the flap to recruit suitible candidates for the Engneering Branch continues, to the extent that Ch4 ran the advert aimed at the chap who can fix a skateboard can fix anything up to and including the Lynx 8 again today.

Which would be handy if we still had any.
If he can convert it to a Wildcat HMA2 then we certainly need to recruit him!
 
this - good idea in theory - but for £35k and a load of bullshit - highly unattractive. You get that for driving a bus, whilst going home every night
Unless you drive the night bus.

Having read through some of the comments and recalling Direct Entry Tiffies in REME it seems to me that if you want qualified engineers to join you later on in their career then give them an attractive engineering job, attractive being job satisfaction, conditions and pay etc. Just stick to that brief and you might get somewhere, do not structure as was done for REME Direct Entrants, they were expected to be like old sweats but were never going to be that.

If only they had been employed for, and expected to be, good at fixing things and helping others fix things and nothing more then it might have worked
 

Latest Threads

Top