White papers...review of TA?

#1
I've heard that there is a white paper coming out next month that will change TA to Army Reserve, and supposedly we will adopt the same approach that the Yanks have in terms of reserve forces. I have three questions:

A) Is this true?

B) What will this actually entail?

C) How quickly will it come in to play?

Cheers,

Ben
 
#3
I HAVE A QUESTION TOO !

How's it going to affect my lifestyle, my employer/employee relationship, my choices ? Am I gonna be mobilised more often ? :?
 
#5
Mongoose said:
Yes, yes it is.
do you have anymore details?? i.e. structure, terms of service etc, etc.

have heard on rumour control that big changes are going to be made, espcially with regards to ToS.
 
#6
CrapGame said:
Mongoose said:
Yes, yes it is.
do you have anymore details?? i.e. structure, terms of service etc, etc.

have heard on rumour control that big changes are going to be made, espcially with regards to ToS.
And apparently its not budget/cost led! :eek:
 
#7
BenFleming said:
I've heard that there is a white paper coming out next month that will change TA to Army Reserve, and supposedly we will adopt the same approach that the Yanks have in terms of reserve forces. I have three questions:

Ben
A) Nobody cares if it is true.

B) Probably no changes what so ever, just the name change.

C) Judging by the army record, i seriously doubt that it will be very expidient. i can 100% confirm that it will not come in for at least 10 years purley by observing the army track record.

Cheers,
 
#8
I have a sneaking suspicion the review will be full of good intentions, worthy aspirations and distant recommendations, rather than a punchy, practical panacea for our current ills.

msr
 
#9
A white paper....Hmmmm.

I'm not sure that the Reserves review might not be a watershed. I fear they may well have been seduced by the dark side of operational expedience at the cost of the volunteer ethos. An Army on the cheap.

The review team's mantra was always 'What does the Army need from the Reserves' not 'What does the Reserve need from the Army'. The former is an easy question, the latter fraught with difficulties and thus probaby ignored.

On that basis, and having met the review team, I suspect they may have stuck to the original question. That said, the comment about it taking ten years is probably true - they can't even man the RTCs properly.
 
#10
Wingletang said:
I'm not sure that the Reserves review might not be a watershed.
There is a whiff of Sir Humphrey about this statement...

Is it a watershed?

msr
 
#11
Countrylad said:
CrapGame said:
Mongoose said:
Yes, yes it is.
do you have anymore details?? i.e. structure, terms of service etc, etc.

have heard on rumour control that big changes are going to be made, espcially with regards to ToS.
And apparently its not budget/cost led! :eek:

...(gasp) surely not!
 
#12
Chaps

In the current climate can we see additional funds being made available for the TA/Reserves?

I tend to think not, I'm sure that that the cry will be “how can meet the operational need at reduced cost?” If we looking at this as a business problem and with no sentiment, then we would dispose of the regimental system for the Reserves as it delivers no measurable benefit in output or financial terms.

Would we look at delivering training based on the RTC's and take the significant savings on TAC's and equipment holdings?

Not a pleasant idea I know, but I suspect its one of the options.

YM
 
#13
Yeo_Man said:
I'm sure that that the cry will be “how can meet the operational need at reduced cost?” If we looking at this as a business problem and with no sentiment, then we would dispose of the regimental system for the Reserves as it delivers no measurable benefit in output or financial terms.
And I am fairly sure the reply will be: F**k this for a game of soldiers.

msr
 
#14
msr said:
Yeo_Man said:
I'm sure that that the cry will be “how can meet the operational need at reduced cost?” If we looking at this as a business problem and with no sentiment, then we would dispose of the regimental system for the Reserves as it delivers no measurable benefit in output or financial terms.
And I am fairly sure the reply will be: F**k this for a game of soldiers.

msr
Yep.

Yeoman - I disagree with you. Retention is a measurable benefit.

Of course the only way to prove this is to bin the Regtimental system first, and then watch people leave in droves. Something tells me that the will wouldn't exist to re-instate it afterwards though, which would be the death of the TA.
 
#15
TopBadger said:
Of course the only way to prove this is to bin the Regtimental system first, and then watch people leave in droves. Something tells me that the will wouldn't exist to re-instate it afterwards though, which would be the death of the TA.
Something tells me that this might well be part of the plan...
 
#17
the report;

paragraph 1;

Platitudes; TA, proud tradition, great contribution, .....

paragraph 2;

current financial situation; efficiency, cost effectiveness, other demands on government money....

Paragraph 3;

Sale of TACs; revenue to treasury, reduction in numbers, .....
me, cynical?
 
#18
Paragraph 4;

Recommendations for the future....

(By 'future' I mean beyond the date of next posting of anyone remotely connected with the report)
 
#19
Lol, i think i get flamed by you guys for every post i make! Good to see some serious comments though, I'm genuinely interested in this issue, purely for the fact that everyone knows that it is happening but nobody seems to really know what it actually consists of?!
 
#20
Detonator said:
We already have an Army Reserve, composed of ex-regs with reserve liabilty.
True. The problem is that most left the Army for a good reason and have little wish to serve again. For that and other reason the TA has been "the Reserve of Choice" for some time now.

- And, no, I'm not casting nasturtiums on the Reg Reservist who have volunteeered for tours or who turned up when the brown envelopes were sent out, fine fellows all.

Changing the name is not the answer. Changing the ToS for the better, reducing the paperwork, simplifying the nonsense of RFA 96, all would help. The real answer is to re-introduce the FUN. I have no doubt whatsoever that it would then be possible to recruit a platoon per market town/city district rather than accept a continual spiral downwards. The cadets manage it....
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top