Stand by...

#3
cuts? Did you hear the discussion on radio 4 this morning that was suggesting the Government will transfer some roles from the regulars to the TA to save money, thereby expanding the reserves...?

There is so much speculation goign round at the minute regarding this review that you should probably flip a coin to choose what you want to believe.
 
#4
But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good rumour.

"The TA currently has around 35,000 soldiers, but insiders say several thousand of them are “dead wood” who cannot be deployed on frontline operations." Bin all the MNDs.

"Running the TA costs almost £500 million every year and each reservist soldier costs more than £15,000, significantly more than each Royal Navy and RAF reservist." Bin the RNR and RAuxAF.

"The smaller TA will also be more closely integrated with the regular Army. Currently, TA units stand independent of the regular Army, with reservists deployed on an individual basis to full-time units on operations. The review is likely to see full-time Army regiments incorporating entire companies of TA soldiers, which would then be trained and prepared to deploy as complete units." Hybrid units (see 102 Bn REME for example

"But even with his support, the TA still faces losing around a third of its current strength." Established strength?

Whatever they decide on it's going to be 18 months down the line before any real change starts hitting units...
 
#5
The source said: “The TA is unfinished business – they should have been restructured and cut before now, but a lot of them are well-connected and eloquent and they’re very good at lobbying. We’ll see how far it gets this time.”
An example of skills crossover?
 
#7
“The TA is unfinished business – they should have been restructured and cut before now, but a lot of them are well-connected and eloquent and they’re very good at lobbying. We’ll see how far it gets this time.”
20 million about turn - bitter? Chip on shoulder?

Q
 
#8
cuts? Did you hear the discussion on radio 4 this morning that was suggesting the Government will transfer some roles from the regulars to the TA to save money, thereby expanding the reserves...?

There is so much speculation goign round at the minute regarding this review that you should probably flip a coin to choose what you want to believe.
Richard Williams was talking about his forthcoming report on the reserves for Policy Exchange. Its published on Thursday - see the flyer below:


Monday 27th September, 2010
Territorial Army may be used as stand-alone units in Afghanistan

The Times references Policy Exchange's upcoming report on restructuring and upgrading the UK's armed forces which proposes expanding the role and number of UK reserve forces on the lines of the US National Guard.

"Writing in The Times last week, two former SAS commanders, Richard Williams and Graeme Lamb, proposed an increase in the numbers and role of Army reserves along US lines, pointing out that reservists, who cost about a fifth of regular soldiers, make up about half of the US Armed Forces and 40 per cent of the Canadian and Australian militaries. They comprise 20 per cent of the British force.

In a paper to be released through the Policy Exchange think-tank on Thursday they will argue that Britain should consider a rethink in the balance of regular to reserve Forces, and use the money saved to make forces more agile and high-tech. They point out that the US National Guard flies one third of the F16 fighter jets in American service, while 40 per cent of US Special Forces in Afghanistan are from reserve forces."



Policy Exchange
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#9
20 million about turn - bitter? Chip on shoulder?

Q
I was present at a function when the very senior officer who was the VIP Guest, told told the TA component, that the 20 Million about turn "wouldn't be forgotten".
 
#10
Territorial Army faces deep cuts - Telegraph

I found the paragraph at the bottom explicitly mentioning how we argued our way out of the recent attempt at cuts particularly interesting. I'd be interested if anyone knows the primary sources the Telegraph are getting these scenarios from?

Happy discussion,

Fluff_eei
They have done what everyone else is doing at the moment, picked a topic out of a hat and made it up quoting some anonymous expert (probably some ill informed ramblings from one of the esteemed members on this site) on the way ^_~
 
#12
No.

msr
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
Richard Williams was talking about his forthcoming report on the reserves for Policy Exchange. Its published on Thursday - see the flyer below:


Monday 27th September, 2010
Territorial Army may be used as stand-alone units in Afghanistan

The Times references Policy Exchange's upcoming report on restructuring and upgrading the UK's armed forces which proposes expanding the role and number of UK reserve forces on the lines of the US National Guard.

"Writing in The Times last week, two former SAS commanders, Richard Williams and Graeme Lamb, proposed an increase in the numbers and role of Army reserves along US lines, pointing out that reservists, who cost about a fifth of regular soldiers, make up about half of the US Armed Forces and 40 per cent of the Canadian and Australian militaries. They comprise 20 per cent of the British force.

In a paper to be released through the Policy Exchange think-tank on Thursday they will argue that Britain should consider a rethink in the balance of regular to reserve Forces, and use the money saved to make forces more agile and high-tech. They point out that the US National Guard flies one third of the F16 fighter jets in American service, while 40 per cent of US Special Forces in Afghanistan are from reserve forces."



Policy Exchange
Correct me if i am wrong, but i think the US definintion of US Special Forces is different to the UK one. US SF fulfill a mainly OMLT equiv role, and the more "special" part is done by Delta/Seals etc. In the UK, UKSF is the Delta/Seal equivalent, with OMLT done by regular inf units.
 
#14
Cost of TA divided by strength of TA = £15K
Hmmmmm. I wonder what the basis was for "Cost" ? I imagine that the figure is a "total" cost so....

If the MOD Budget is £37Bn and that provides 194,000 Regular forces ( Incl RAF & RN) plus 39,000 Reservists then... at £15k each the Reserves cost £585m.

The Regulars and their kit, buildings and support and incidentals must account for the remaining £36.5Bn - or just over £1.88m each.

£15k sounds like real value for money to me....
 
#15
Did anybody read the following from Liam Fox's letter as "Standby 2(NC) Sig Bde"?

Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics
Q
 
#16
I believe that the NG works due to a very simple and very executable (in the UK) action. In every contract with Public, State & Federal authorities it is a legally binding clause that the contractor will employ X% of their workforce as NG and allow them the mandated time off to train and mobilise ie if you want the business you need to very actively support the military.......
A few simple standard words could change a lot of things!
 
#17
Hmmmmm. I wonder what the basis was for "Cost" ? I imagine that the figure is a "total" cost so....

If the MOD Budget is £37Bn and that provides 194,000 Regular forces ( Incl RAF & RN) plus 39,000 Reservists then... at £15k each the Reserves cost £585m.

The Regulars and their kit, buildings and support and incidentals must account for the remaining £36.5Bn - or just over £1.88m each.

£15k sounds like real value for money to me....
Quite, £15K is meaningless without an explanation of how it was derived and a comparitor. £15K Vs £1.88M - its an interesting (though probably meaningless) comparison.
 
#18
it's all tosh anyway - whatever way you cut it.

The long and short of it is that this Review has been done for the wrong reasons, by the wrong people and at the wrong pace.

We are at war. People are risking their lives and in some cases, either being maimed for the rest of their years, or die. Prime Ministers have stood at the despatch box and lauded the Armed Forces for their courage and dogged determination to fulfil the nation's bidding. How anyone can then seek to undermine that ethos by arbitrary financial cuts escapes me completely and does every politician a huge disservice.

Someone, perhaps that is now to be Liam Fox after all (see leaked letter)?, needs to stand up and be counted and defend the defenders. No-one has apparently seen fit to do it thus far, not in public anyway. Smoke and mirrors abound but surely even the most simplistic moron can see that cutting the strength of the already miniscule Army (smaller than Tescos, M&S, the Inland Revenue or the Police) is not just a derogation of national duty, not just an abdication of loyalty to those that serve, not just an appalling injustice to those that have gone before us throughout history, but just plain stupid?

Get a grip those of you hiding in the so called corridors of power and influence and stand up for the Armed Forces. The Army (and the Navy and RAF for that matter) are not just about extending military influence, they are also about social and moral values, a key part of the fabric of our Society, delivering values and standards to huge numbers of people both within and outside of the military whilst demonstrating leadership and doing what is 'right' - all too rare these days. The Armed Forces are as integral to being British as Nelsons Column, the Royal Family, Fish and Chips, and Football. Reduce their value and influence at your peril.

So, what of SDSR? Yes, find a better way to use the already embarrassingly small amount of resources we have left. Yes, seek to find efficiencies (Lord knows, that can't be difficult given the endemic waste in the system), and Yes, thin down the upper echelons and posts that add no value. But do not undermine the ethos and morale of the Armed Forces by cutting back on equipment, resources, infrastructure, and benefits either now or when we exit from Herrick simply to acquiesce some pointy headed accountant who, as we all know, understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

SDSR should have been done quietly, with a period of reflection, broad, and engaged with all area of the military.

The manner in which the Reserve has been dealt with is a particular case in point. Apart from the speculation in the Telegraph and The Times, the odd House of Commons comment, and subjective opinion from the head of a think tank report (note that is delivered after the strategic SDSR meeting), there is no debate. It is clear to anyone with even half a brain that the Reserve has the capacity to add real value to the discussions. Of course, cutting the Reserve - the armageddon option - will save money. So would closing Abbey Wood or the Armoured Corps. Surely though, just now, it would be better to see how the Reserves could be levered to deliver greater utility and output? The footprint is in place, the organisation is in place, the people are in place - any business consultant would tell you that delivering the infrastructure for any project is the hard part. The easy part is then the utilisation - come on MOD wake up and smell the coffee - it's a no-brainer......

Whether it's £10k, £15k, or £50k for a Territorial is not really the point. Whatever, it's cheaper - and by a long way. Moreover, the Reserve are flexible, cost effective, enthusiastic, and can go home (not paid for by the Army) afterwards.
 
#19
The long and short of it is that this Review has been done for the wrong reasons, by the wrong people and at the wrong pace.
One can't help but agree.

The sad part is that it's probably going to be worse than we fear. Not because of the detail of SDSR but because of the probable absence of a plan. It may just be money led.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top