SDR and the YO

Discussion in 'Join the Army - Regular Officer Recruiting' started by dirk_digler, Jun 14, 2010.

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. The Con-Dem coalition is about to alter how the UK projects its military influence around the globe with the SDR- with many predicting a seachange towards a force based primarily around naval/air assets and a reduction in the expeditionary nature of the Armed Forces as it currently stands.

    With this in mind, what effect will these changes have on Ocdts and YOs who have either recently commisioned or are currently at RMAS and are finalising their choice of regiment?

    For example, what if the SDR decides that there is no longer a requirment for 12 RAC regiments? Will this influence Ocdts choices? If there are cuts, what will become of the YO who has just joined a MBT/Recce regiment?

    I may well have missed something and be jumping the gun to a certain extent but I am certainly thinking about longevity when choosing my prefered regiments/corps.

    Anybody care to put my mind at ease or share their concerns?
     
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    If you remember back to Options for change in 1990, what happened there was a sudden drying up of any extensions to Short Service commissions and a general culling of junior officers through wastage that way. Commissions were then rescaled to what units were left. Some Reg Cs were given out to those v lucky few that hit the quality line and that was it. Those that had gone for Reg C early sat there smug...I was one of them.

    I dare say we will have the same approach again.
     
  3. Are you also predicting a cut in manpower of 18% like Options for Change? Not to put words in your mouth!

    Where and how the inevitable changes/cuts will be made is for another thread and another day, but what I want to know is how will it affect the Ocdt who joins a regiment only for it to be amalgamated or dare I say disbanded?

    In theory you could pass out of RMAS only to find yourself jobless. Is this the case?
     
  4. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    A cut of that magnitude is certainly being spoken about. Read the press. I hope it doesn't come to that.

    My regiment was to be amalgamated. The people that suffered had been in a few years. The newbies mainly had the time to survive beyond the cuts when the recruited numbers fell as well and the wastage/culling then meant there was room. The standard "I'll extend when I need to" mentality disappeared and those wanting longer worked hard to remain. One or too transferred to where there was space. Others sadly did the minimum time and moved on.

    I don't know how the system will play it this time but it will be, IMO, a reduction in recruiting numbers paired with a downsize in the number allowed to progress their commission. Along with natural wastage the numbers will fluctuate down for a while until the system stabilises. May take a few years though, just as it did for both soldier and officer numbers in the 90s.

    MoD will hopefully play it a bit better than last time when recruiting was hit v hard and Bn numbers (Scots Div for me) were hit dreadfully as the gate keepers turned off the wee Jocks to other trades because they saw no secure future for them and no career.
     
  5. Bleak forecast.
    Surely there would be a shift towards maintaining more land forces than boosting the Air Force/Navy (taking into account the context of the war we are enaged in now)? Furthermore it seems unfair that the actual soldiers should bear the brunt of the cuts. In my simplistic view of this issue I would of thought that the MoD and its amry of burreaucrats would be were most if not all the trimming should take place.
    Has there been anymore news as to why Sir Jock Stirrup will still be in charge of the SDR even though he is bound to leave a short time after?
     
  6. Two former army chiefs are the frontrunners to replace Sir Jock Stirrup (General Sir David Richards and General Sir Nick Houghton), I expect this will have a big affect on the SDR. I hope that the government, armed forces and MoD realise that the Army should be protected more than the RAF and the navy. In fact I would go one further and say the Army actually needs expanding (Infantry and AAC in particular). Future wars are going to rely on land forces and support for them.

    I certainly hope it doesnt affect me at all really (hoping to go RMAS this coming May). My ACA hasn't seemed to mention anything about it, and a whole new 'range' of recruitment adverts have recently sprung up on the TV.
     
  7. It does look bleak ahead.

    Rumour has it that it will be armour/heavy armour that will be hit the worst, and even heavy artillery. RAF seems to be the first one up for the chop.

    But yes no idea really, will have to wait and see. Fingers crossed they make sensible decisions!
     
  8. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Because he is in post and will be a convenient fall guy, perhaps? :?
     
  9.  
  10. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

     
  11. 1. Force projection to what end? Would a country like North Korea/Iran/China fear our deployable Brigades? We might be able to send 10,000 troops.
    The vast numbers of troops these countries can pour into conventional warfare is completely one sided. I was refering more to GW1,GW2 when Naval and Air assets "shock and awe" prepared the way for our land forces.

    2. Yes we have done rather well whilst hitting above our own weight!

    3. And there in lies the problem. What use is an aircraft carrier in Afghanistan? But Dr Fox will not be planning 10+ years in Afghanistan and neither will the SDR. I didn't say scrapping soldiers but changing how we support conflicts in the future. Besides, if we had the Navy of today in 1982 then the Falkland Islands would probably be called the Marianas!
     
  12. Islas Malvinas? The Marianas are in the Pacific.
    Excusing my pettiness, this is an interesting topic and one which I imagine is playing on the minds of many of the current crop of POs

    It's interesting to hear Dr. Fox state that the decisions will be made with "no sentimentality". Implies that blows could fall on those units which, whilst historically and symbolically important, are not presently useful. Draw conclusions as you will.
     
  13. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Then if your opinion is such, go and join one or either of these two fine organisations and stay away from the Army. Personally, I'd wait and see what the SDSR announces before you make up your mind. Might find out then what the UK PLC thinks it wants/prioritises in its armed forces structures.

    One simple thing to remember, Air cannot hold ground. Neither can navy and both need to be targeted if their big weapons are to be used correctly. That needs intelligence and that largely, once you are into the fight means boots on the ground.
     
  14. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    We've had 2 major wars in the last 7 years, neither of which has been particularly popular with the general public, or many politicans. Both have been, primarily, because we need to support the USA in order to retain their military friendship. Perhaps the underlying agenda here is prevent a re-ocurrance without having to say "no." "We'd really like to support you on this one but unfortunately we don't have a lot of soldiers. How about a carrier battle group and some air cover?" Shows willing but is unlikely to be costly in lives
     
  15. Surely there won't be further cuts to infantry battlions? [rhetorical question I know...]

    If this happens it will only be possible to send a strongly worded letter out to Helmand, as there'll be nothing left to deploy.