Streamlining Business - Can it be done effectively within tri-service?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by dingerr, Apr 5, 2011.

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. With all three services being squeezed as a result of the austerity measures and SDSR implemented, should we be looking at business models to streamline 'military business'?

    Could the following become tri-service?:

    Logistics
    Med
    Other suggestions.

    Should we be looking at reducing our liability in certain fields?:

    Do we require as many REME soldiers? Could civilians take on a greater role at static locations?

    Should we be looking at greater civilianisation of roles within the UK and maintain a uniformed contingent solely for deployment?

    What trades/roles can we bin with a view to sustaining/increasing our fighting capability?

    Should we be placing a greater cost on our services? MACP/MACC?
     
  2. Servicemen and women are being sacked to save money.Where will the money come from to employ civilians to do these jobs?
     
  3. I think the idea is to sack a load more soldiers and replace them with much cheaper civvies. Which means even more money saved.
     
  4. My bold.
    Where will you find those then?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Poland?

    Edited to add: Other Immigrants are available.
     
  6. Soldiers are very expensive to run, not necessarily the wages but all the rest of the costs, the majority of which you don't have to pay when you employ a civvie.

    No pension, no med/dental costs. No uniform, no training, no 6 weeks leave etc etc etc.
     
  7. 2nd line transport could be civilianised with no problem. Medics and loggies could certainly become tri service with RLC, for example, replacing navy writers and crab suppliers. It would make for an interesting choice of postings, too. Imagine if there were tri-service corps for logistics, medical, maintenance/repair, fire fighting, legal, education,general clerical duties, ground based air defence, amphibious units. In practice, all of these have happened in the past in ad hoc outfits, in Aden, Falklands, Cyprus, etc etc etc, and all have worked. Where it falls down is when officers of various hues and capbadges realise that they've become unnecessary and start to cry. The current wails from RAF for more dosh to cover Libya deployments would be quickly silenced if CMD sacked the current head for failing to train sufficient pilots.
    What's really needed isn't another review of strategy or manning/ budgets, it's a review of officer careers that's lacking. Other armies cope perfectly well, for example, with captains as OC Coy, Majors as battalion commanders etc. Colonel appears to be a pointless, but well paid, rank between Bn CO and Brig? Sack all colonels and move their job down a rank, move command positions down a rank as well, and what is actually lost? Why must pilots in RN/RAF be commissioned anyway? Why do I as Joe Taxpayer need major to colonel equivalents to fly a plane when the same could be done practically by NCO/WOs?( and is in other arms?)
     
  8. What is the cost of keeping our troops in Afgahnistan?
     
  9. Cow

    Cow LE

    Interesing thread. Having been out for 6 years now I've seen both sides, commercial and military. I'd compare the military to a motorsports racing team, a bottomless money pit. You get out what you put in. If you put in enough you'll reach the F1 level, with a well trained team using the best equipment.

    There are minimum levels of staffing/equipment that enable you to do a certain job. The military is not like a civilian company where you can pay for some consultants for a weekends work. If it was then outsourcing would work. You need that experince in house, where it can be deployed, rested and re-trained in a controlled manor.

    I believe that money can be saved by becoming more tri-service, at least in standards and requirements. In the same breath I also think that devolving contracts to local suppliers rather than having 1 massive all encompasing contract (e.g. food supply to cook houses) would also benefit the forces, local food from local suppliers cooked to a standard which people will eat it and benefit rather than wanting to go to the local pizza take away each evening.

    I also believe that money can be saved by the government at policy level. We need a 20 year stratagy which will be kept to and allow equipment purchases and training to be prepared and delivered without the worry that the next government will change something. This maybe in place to some extent but doesn't work well, that is where the savings should be made. Cutting man power is one thing, but then they're not there when their needed to be used to deliver the policy the government wants to persue.
     
  10. I've been convinced for a long time that there is a lot of streamlining that can be done around the tri-service area. Medical, clerks, police, legal and educators just for a start do basically the same job as they do in other services. There's certainly no reason why we can't have our Human Resource services amalgamated into tri-service.

    I'm still not convinced there is any need for three seperate services at all.
     
  11. To answer, specifically: "What trades/roles can we bin with a view to sustaining/increasing our fighting capability?"

    The 'wedgiment' effect is perhaps the most destructive force on operational effectiveness in the British Army - despite all the claims to the contrary.

    Consider this: in order to save the front-line 'wedgiments' (infantry, armour or artillery) with the aim of preserving "fighting capability" a decision is made to reduce the CSS element of the Army (we've been there before in the 1990s, haven't we!!). How far do you cut the tail to preserve the head? The more you cut, the more you turn the Army into a Home Guard killing machine. Lots of teeth arms units which cannot go anywhere for a sustainable period. Remember, no 2nd or 3rd line support means no deployability - unless your cheap contracted civvies are going to volunteer for operations.

    We already have an Army which is unbalanced in favour of the teeth arms to the extent that we cannot properly support the brigade-sized force already deployed. How thinly was your trade deployed around operational theatres dingerr?

    If cutting needs to be done to rebalance the Army into a more effective and sustained force, 'wedgiments' have to go. We no longer need Home Guard battalions rotated into Ulster. We need fully deployable, supportable self-sustainable all arms groups.
     
  12. Civilianisation works well for admin roles - I've worked in London where we had corporals doing an admin job on a package which included FIA, flat in canary wharf and free travelcard (which was in total worth well north of £50K per year), when the same job could have been done by a civvy E2 for £16K per year with no benefits.

    So, I'm all for civilianising admin posts across the services in areas where the incumbent has no requirement to deploy, and it makes little economic sense to post an expensive military person in to do a job that does not require military knowledge. Where posts need to be ringfenced is where the individuals are likely to need to deploy, or require specific SME which can only be gained by serving in the military.

    More broadly I would suggest a range of tri-service combinations can be made - airfields and all aviation support could be run by one service, while Intelligence could be combined too. We have 3 seperate intelligence functions, deploying staff into what are mostly purple posts. This duplicates the CofC 3 times over, whereas a tri-service intelligence HQ, with single service interests represented could reduce this duplication.

    There is still a lot of fat in the system administration wise - much of which is self perpetuating in my opinion. I suspect you could do away with much of the home organisation, such as the regional forces and after a short period, would not notice the difference.
     
  13. I don't have a firm opinion either way, but a potential enemy in this thread is logic. Just because something makes sense logically doesn't mean it's a good idea.

    Pride and rivalry are two of the key things that make the British Armed Forces as good as they are. Standardise/merge/civilianise too much and you run the risk of losing that.

    Also, the reason the British Army functions so much better than most other armies is not because we're the best funded or most extensively trained; but because there's a maturity about the organisation that has been built up over hundreds of years. The 'can do' attitude, respect for rank, dark humour, etc. are not taught or written down, but passed down from generation to generation. Interrupt the flow too much, and you'll lose that to boot.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. from the civvies who are out of work as they have just been made redundant by the Forces
     
  15. Would bestowing and recognising Veteran help in recognising and employing non serving personnel? Only lip service is paid to the term veteran at present.

    Personally I think the tail is far to fat for the head. Employing personel across three services to do the same job has to be more expensive than a single entity.