Upgrading our Armed Forces - Policy Exchange report

#2
"...This would require an expansion of the reserve forces by at
least 200% – doubling the size of the TA to 60,000; and
increasing the size of the reserve forces of the maritime and air
forces to at least 15,000; enabling a corresponding reduction in
the standing forces by some margin.
In our view 66% of the capability held for armoured warfare
should be given to the reservists, and based in the UK near a
dock; with the remainder (one armoured brigade) being held as
a combat support brigade providing elements for the Joint
Intervention Brigades as required by any intervention mission.
This model should be extended to any other area where
retaining expensive standing military assets is judged to be
inefficient relative to the threats / requirements. This could also
include air-air combat aircraft, air transport / logistics aircraft,
(less those that enable tactical insertion of special and early
intervention forces), and maritime capability held for homeland
security. It could also include all elements conducting ceremonial
duties in London or elsewhere.
An expanded and more capable reserve force would enable
the reduction of the size of the standing forces so that they
could be based effectively within the UK; given that reservists
do not require housing / barracks etc.
It would also ensure that military capability could be built to
meet the demands of enduring operations or when such operations
expand beyond the scope of the standing military to resource.
In such cases we would support the deployment of formed TA
units as has been so successful with the US National Guard."

Gulp.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#3
"...This would require an expansion of the reserve forces by at
least 200% – doubling the size of the TA to 60,000; and
increasing the size of the reserve forces of the maritime and air
forces to at least 15,000; enabling a corresponding reduction in
the standing forces by some margin.
In our view 66% of the capability held for armoured warfare
should be given to the reservists, and based in the UK near a
dock; with the remainder (one armoured brigade) being held as
a combat support brigade providing elements for the Joint
Intervention Brigades as required by any intervention mission.
This model should be extended to any other area where
retaining expensive standing military assets is judged to be
inefficient relative to the threats / requirements. This could also
include air-air combat aircraft, air transport / logistics aircraft,
(less those that enable tactical insertion of special and early
intervention forces), and maritime capability held for homeland
security. It could also include all elements conducting ceremonial
duties in London or elsewhere.
An expanded and more capable reserve force would enable
the reduction of the size of the standing forces so that they
could be based effectively within the UK; given that reservists
do not require housing / barracks etc.
It would also ensure that military capability could be built to
meet the demands of enduring operations or when such operations
expand beyond the scope of the standing military to resource.
In such cases we would support the deployment of formed TA
units as has been so successful with the US National Guard."

Gulp.
This is the sort of radical thinking I was hoping to see come out of the SDSR.
To make this work, the UK would need to introduce T&C's, legal frameworks etc, for the TA similar to the US NG. So as well as proper employee protection etc, there would be an understood commitment from the Reservist.

Now, does this Government (or the Regular Army) have the minerals to execute such a radical change?
 
#4
"... the deployment of formed TA
units as has been so successful with the US National Guard."

Gulp.
No wonder your gulping, if it turns into a National Guard, you will have to go abroad
 
#5
Both the source of this publication and the timing are interesting.

Have a look at the "about us" page on the Policy Exchange website at About Policy Exchange and you'll see "fan mail" type quotes from several Tory party luminaries, including George Osborne. Of course, these quotes may carefully selected, but I suspect that this is the type of "think tank" that would have influence within the present government.
 
#7
I seem to remember seeing a discussion document in 1992 that proposed almost exactly this - if it's kit for high intensity, give most of it to the TA. That left the reg forces to get on with being small and interventionist other than a small cadre of 'heavies'.

As you say, political will will be the clincher.
 
#10
Disney does not do UK Mil discounts, unlike Busch gardens and Seaworld.

Did you get pensioner / has-been discounts?
 
#11
I had the pleasure of an exchange with the NG this summer. On the financial incentives versus training and deployment obligations it is such a different world from our own - Eisenhower might have been right about the US becoming hooked on its military-industrial complex.

A couple of thoughts occur to me about the proposed move of heavy capability to the reserves:

- the USNG has an inordinate number of full-timers keeping the big green machine running, who are active duty Guard rather than posted Regulars. Would we be prepared to pay for this or would it be the usual British shoe-string affair ?
- would we mothball most of the kit and just keep a small percentage of vehicles in regular use, would we have a hefty active duty element to perform maintenance duties, or would the reservist spend most of his / her weekend track-bashing ?

FP
 
#12
WTF someone has been eating magic mushrooms, there in season at the minute too, I might just pop up the woods and take a few. I really need to get on this trip.
 
#13
The man who tells messrs Lambe and Williams that they must have been eating magic mushrooms when writing their report is a braver man than I !
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#14
I thought the report was interesting and raised some very valid points for consideration. A few minor niggles:

1. If you are going to put that much effort into preparing a document, at least get someone to proof read it properly. Lots of minor errors which gave it the appearance of a not very well presented degree dissertation rather than a policy document for consideration at the highest levels.

2. It may have been better if they could find other examples to support their theories that don't have the two authors as their central characters - it gives it the edge of being a little self satisfied.

3. I have worked for one of the trustees of Policy Exchange - A bigger **** you would struggle to meet, whose sole interest in life is to make himself more money. As soon as I saw his name on it, I wondered which of the elements involved he had a financial interest in.
 
#16
The man who tells messrs Lambe and Williams that they must have been eating magic mushrooms when writing their report is a braver man than I !
It was mainly directed at the peeps who believe that any of this would/could be implemented by the government( no matter how much sense it may or may not make), not at the persons responsible for the report whoever they are...............there not hard are they?
 
#17
a. We could all go on holiday here, I suppose...

Fantasy Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but it would still cost money.

b. We could find ourselves crushed by the grinding reality of the current economic malaise and just give up.

c. We could aspire to something better...

"Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."

T.E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdow


There is nothing worse in life than a paucity of ambition.

Mind you, Lawrence was a bit strange in the head... I suppose the trick is in finding the balance.

FP
 
#18
I thought the report was interesting and raised some very valid points for consideration. A few minor niggles:

1. If you are going to put that much effort into preparing a document, at least get someone to proof read it properly. Lots of minor errors which gave it the appearance of a not very well presented degree dissertation rather than a policy document for consideration at the highest levels.
2. It may have been better if they could find other examples to support their theories that don't have the two authors as their central characters - it gives it the edge of being a little self satisfied.

.
Correct - it was poorly put together: surprising given that presumably neither of the two authors lacks for staff training. Maybe a lot of it was subbed out to a team of researchers and not properly checked by the grown-ups.
 
#19
Some of the input is exactly what I was thinking, but its riddled with problems

For example, I am In a Gunner unit very near a port, ideal for the plan of giving us heavy kit AS90/MLRS thier are however certain problems

1. Although the shed might be big enough, there may not be enough of them (personally I think they will be tooo small)
2. Gettting te kit of of the TAC would be problematic due to access gates and the major road outside, we are lucky to get a DAF out
3. We are short of Landrover drivers, retrain and qualify for tracks will be costly in time and money
4. Maintenace of tracks is time costly

To make such a change some serious money is required including major rework on the centre and support from Regular staff

I would dearly love it to happen but doubt it will
 
#20
To make such a change some serious money is required including major rework on the centre and support from Regular staff
Or a thorough review of the estate to see what will fit in where (garages / road links / locations etc) and have a re-shuffle.

msr
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
YTFC REME 15
B Army Reserve 33
M RLC 11

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top