Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think the NSR will be fine as you go to sea with ns. But I fear for the AR, I think it will get smaller and specialist only.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
      I think the NSR will be fine as you go to sea with ns. But I fear for the AR, I think it will get smaller and specialist only.
      Those personnel who go to sea are few and far between.

      Also the same story with duties, i haven't seen the NSR on a base duty for many a year.

      Loads turned out when ships were involved in testing alongside (high profile and on PDA) but again since that ceased, i haven't seen many around.

      If the NSR mindset changed, they would be a valuable asset for the NS, and be developed past the Seaman branch only.

      I'd like to see any specialised skills with the NSR, being harnessed in a similar capacity to the reserve element of 2 Bde CIS Coy.

      The reserve must be fit for purpose, and not just dressing up in uniform for ceremonial and pictures.

      It can be, with a correct midset from the NSR and the NS.

      Comment


      • we took another step backwards today with the Government not bothering to make the promised amendments to the Defence Act to allow overseas reserve service.
        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

        Comment


        • IMHO New R5 will be published to legalise the structural changes that are already there sine 2012 and to sort out the promotion/discharge issues. I reckon any changes to legislation RE Overseas will wait until CODF makes their recommendations.
          "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by apod View Post
            IMHO New R5 will be published to legalise the structural changes that are already there sine 2012 and to sort out the promotion/discharge issues. I reckon any changes to legislation RE Overseas will wait until CODF makes their recommendations.
            I'm all for reserve overseas service and I know there was a prior commitment but I can see the wisdom in waiting for CODF. Now if they recommend it, ignoring it again then would be unforgivable.

            Comment


            • I'm all for reserve overseas service and I know there was a prior commitment but I can see the wisdom in waiting for CODF
              The proposed change from Chuck merely enables RDF travel overseas for small engagements not large scale troop missions . Don't mistake this as anything other than sheer could-not-be-arsed from the Department in the face of crying need. CODF will punt it for 24 months at the very least. R5 is the absolute least worry of any problems out there at all , merit based promotions for all ranks could be boarded tomorrow but theres a bunch of people who are convinced it will cure the gout. There is no rank ( apart from 2* and 3* ) that needs a change to R5 , and for those ranks we need to do a groundup change and move most likely to common core stuff like the Brit phase 1a and B

              every syllabus change recently has been someone doing "lets add some more cool stuff" without taking stuff out and its painful to watch


              Followup : I see a times article saying we can only be paid for training which is BS . We can be paid for ATCP and permanent service too and security duties. its all in R5
              Last edited by trellheim; 5 March 2021, 16:58.
              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                The proposed change from Chuck merely enables RDF travel overseas for small engagements not large scale troop missions.
                Exactly .... it was the Minister who made it about overseas troop missions.

                R5 is the absolute least worry of any problems out there at all , merit based promotions for all ranks could be boarded tomorrow but theres a bunch of people who are convinced it will cure the gout.
                Except look at what has happened with some promotions to Sgt. There is no uniformity.

                There is no rank ( apart from 2* and 3* ) that needs a change to R5 , and for those ranks we need to do a groundup change and move most likely to common core stuff like the Brit phase 1a and B
                How do you mean?

                every syllabus change recently has been someone doing "lets add some more cool stuff" without taking stuff out and its painful to watch
                Problem is that some of them are basic skills that every private soldier should have (afaik some are still missing). The RDF private today can now expect to be serving beside PDF and that requires interoperability of basic soldierly skills.

                More is being added to PDF syllabi with very little taken out.

                Comment


                • Problem is that some of them are basic skills that every private soldier should have (afaik some are still missing). The RDF private today can now expect to be serving beside PDF and that requires interoperability of basic soldierly skills.

                  More is being added to PDF syllabi with very little taken out.
                  PDF Captive audience


                  FCA private in 1986 expected to serve beside PDF as well (me, and did) , mounted the guard in the same way as the other soldiers beside me. Happened almost every year since. Not a great argument. Our syllabus can't be the same as the PDF
                  "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                  "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                  Comment


                  • If there not then you must establish a very basic common denominator in training for RDF so they can be useful in a dedicated role ie secruity duties, there, sorted that one but as a member of the guard you must also be able to defend your post, watch over a prisoner, put out a fire to name a few. So I the Syllabus must be the same but broken up to suit RDF time. If not the cod should just recommend we all go to the civil defence where we can use our current RDF skills. Submitted my submission to COD a few days ago, includes some of what rdfra suggested but knocked most of it for something better and more realistic. Before people start, I was never asked by my Rep Association, through unit rep for any input to national executive and I don't know of any who were.

                    Comment


                    • Before people start, I was never asked by my Rep Association, through unit rep for any input to national executive and I don't know of any who were.
                      thats OK I wasn't either. You are perfectly free to put in your own submission.
                      "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                      "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
                        If there not then you must establish a very basic common denominator in training for RDF so they can be useful in a dedicated role ie secruity duties, there, sorted that one but as a member of the guard you must also be able to defend your post, watch over a prisoner, put out a fire to name a few. So I the Syllabus must be the same but broken up to suit RDF time. If not the cod should just recommend we all go to the civil defence where we can use our current RDF skills. Submitted my submission to COD a few days ago, includes some of what rdfra suggested but knocked most of it for something better and more realistic. Before people start, I was never asked by my Rep Association, through unit rep for any input to national executive and I don't know of any who were.
                        In the RDFRA's defence; if they had to solicited everyone's ideas and responses they wouldn't have been able to put out the coherent and complete document they did in advance of the closing date.

                        I don't agree with a lot of their submission but there is a lot of parts of it I'm happy with that I'm sure many others would be vehemently against.

                        Is that representative of every members' views? Probably not, but we have a single voice in there that'll get a lot more airtime that our individual submissions.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                          PDF Captive audience


                          FCA private in 1986 expected to serve beside PDF as well (me, and did) , mounted the guard in the same way as the other soldiers beside me. Happened almost every year since. Not a great argument. Our syllabus can't be the same as the PDF
                          Absolutely but the expectations of the soldier are different and so is the role. Compare training on 303 v Steyr, 77 set v SINCGARS, basic first aid v MFR, nothing v M203 and SRAAW. There is a very real expectation on RDF (or be in only in some units) that they be capable of operating as part of a joint section (with PDF) in barracks (duties), operations (ATCA, ATCP, etc) and on the ground (tactical ex’s).

                          It is absolutely not realistic for RDF to do everything on PDF syllabus it would take years. But the RDF 3* needs to be competent at a lot more than doing duties and is currently expected to be.

                          On thing that the PDF soldier will have over the RDF soldier is a lot more practice during their training due to time constraints.
                          Last edited by DeV; 5 March 2021, 22:13.

                          Comment


                          • In the RDFRA's defence; if they had to solicited everyone's ideas and responses they wouldn't have been able to put out the coherent and complete document they did in advance of the closing date.
                            I am so angry at RDFRA I will just say "horse-puckey" . They had every chance to canvass the membership. Commission was announced in the Programme for Govt they had several months to sort it out; this is a pet submission by a very small number of people and not representative.

                            I'm going to put my own submission in but I only have myself to answer to for that
                            Last edited by trellheim; 5 March 2021, 23:54.
                            "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                            "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                            Comment


                            • On this point
                              But the RDF 3* needs to be competent at a lot more than doing duties and is currently expected to be.

                              endless debate and so much time wasted by continuing to throw sand in the mix. Basic skills only and then develop.
                              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                                On this point


                                endless debate and so much time wasted by continuing to throw sand in the mix. Basic skills only and then develop.
                                Not saying your wrong

                                But “basic skills” are different from what they were..... this is a FFD to MFR

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X