White papers...review of TA?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by StabOfFire, Sep 18, 2008.

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. 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
     
  2. msr

    msr LE

  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 ? :?
     
  4. Yes, yes it is.
     
  5. 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. And apparently its not budget/cost led! :eek:
     
  7. 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. msr

    msr LE

    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. msr

    msr LE

    There is a whiff of Sir Humphrey about this statement...

    Is it a watershed?

    msr
     

  11. ...(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. msr

    msr LE

    And I am fairly sure the reply will be: F**k this for a game of soldiers.

    msr
     
  14. 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. msr

    msr LE

    Something tells me that this might well be part of the plan...