The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

[danno]

The rference to the TA is not realistic in the TA are ,and will on a greater scale, fill a gap in BA op requirements .As things stand there is no operational req here for the reserve and not even a mention of a poss req even wrt to the 9500 downsizing etc.
Put in a diff way,to what extent,if any would the PDF be compromised on an op basis if the reserve was stood down? The obvious answer to this also serves to deal with the VFM exercise.

[DeV]

I think it ever unfair to say that Sam Browne's has been the primary success of RDFRA.

A small group of people put a lot of their personal time into the organisation for little if any reward.

I was at the ADC when the Sam Browne decision was made by the COS, it came up in a speech (after the COS had spoken), he stood back up and said no problem. No negotiation required why cost neutral !

The major success is grat and the scale of issue!

[DeV]

The difference is the PDF, don't want/won't let the RDF contribute!

[Docman]

The major success is grat and the scale of issue!

If anything, the Grat negotiations were the Death Knell of the organisation. Yes, a lot of effort was put in to achieve what was achieved but it was completely blown with the last minute changes being accepted without a whimper and thousand of Reservists being allowed to rot. It also led to a split that has dogged the organisation ever since and destroyed its chances of ever getting any new blood in. Hence it has dies a death every day and has rotted away. I remember it being a major turning point for the organisation - their actions would make or break the organisation. Had they done it the right way, they would have been on the crest of a wave for years to come but, no, they decided to let the recruits and 2*s rot and that was the beginning of the end for RDFRA.

It was the moment that I lost all faith in the organisation. I did well out of the negotiations but leaving the recruits and 2 stars to rot left a bitter taste in my mouth and led me to getting out. And people wonder why I went from being a big supporter to big critic.

[Cryos]

I think it ever unfair to say that Sam Browne's has been the primary success of RDFRA.

A small group of people put a lot of their personal time into the organisation for little if any reward.

I was at the ADC when the Sam Browne decision was made by the COS, it came up in a speech (after the COS had spoken), he stood back up and said no problem. No negotiation required why cost neutral !

The major success is grat and the scale of issue!

Scale of issue is still an issue IMHO, while its now properly in black and white it still doesn't mean you will get what you are entitled to. People have found other ways to stop giving equipment.. Want a bag ? The answer alot of my colleagues have recently is the DF doesnt provide bags anymore, yet it still exists in the AI. This is the same for many things that are no longer being issued.

Part of the problem of scale of issue is generally that once someone says no at any point, nobody uses the initiative of looking at any of the AI's etc to see what corresponding entitlements are and what mechanisms can be used to ensure that the problem is eliviated.

If anything, the Grat negotiations were the Death Knell of the organisation. Yes, a lot of effort was put in to achieve what was achieved but it was completely blown with the last minute changes being accepted without a whimper and thousand of Reservists being allowed to rot. It also led to a split that has dogged the organisation ever since and destroyed its chances of ever getting any new blood in. Hence it has dies a death every day and has rotted away. I remember it being a major turning point for the organisation - their actions would make or break the organisation. Had they done it the right way, they would have been on the crest of a wave for years to come but, no, they decided to let the recruits and 2*s rot and that was the beginning of the end for RDFRA.

It was the moment that I lost all faith in the organisation. I did well out of the negotiations but leaving the recruits and 2 stars to rot left a bitter taste in my mouth and led me to getting out. And people wonder why I went from being a big supporter to big critic.

I presume this is on the basis of the 12 month service requirement for grat? Naturally i suppose with this Recruits would be effected in their entirety and perhaps some two stars. It would be more or less highlighted now that directly after your recruit camp and weekends you pass out as a 2*; But it times passed it wouldn't be unusual to see someone as a two star still after 24 months depending on how fast the home unit trains up people. By comparison a colleague of mine has been a 2* nearly 36 months and was only promoted to that after a good number of months; I was fortunate that at the time i joined it was a matter of 4 months.

It makes little sense really, i couldn't really care if i got my grat or not im not there for the money. Others perhaps seek more in terms of compensation but i dont think its the heart of the organisation.

[DeV]

The scale of issue is there so the entitlement is there which gets rid of one of the storeman's excuses!

By the way kit bags are now called laundry bags (the DPM school bag).

Because RDFRA don't have access to the C&A scheme they can't bring up things like the last minute change in grat (that was made after RDFRA had published the changes as far as I remember). It wasn't what RDFRA agreed to!

While I think recruits should get something at least there were improvements were made for the bulk of people.

Too many people say that recruiting is our life blood. You can recruit as much as you want but if most go non-effective, don't parade regularly or aren't trained properly, it is a loosing battle!

[Come-quickly]

Here's a crazy idea for an interim reorg. Reduce the brigades to two battle groups, arty are enhanced support coy + cav are enhanced ISTAR, mt, MPs & medics go to hq coy, 3 manoeuvre companies and a skeleton training company.

Extra officers and sncos (i.e. most of us, sjould compete on merit with those who don't get appointments either finding a way to be useful (e.g. analysing reams of unclassified data for int support or providing specialist civvy skills in legal,medical, it, engineering) or if they still have legs agree to serve as riflemen in a holding platoon in the training company.

Job done, minimal logistics maximum coherence.

[Bravo20]

I know I am repeating myself. Until the issues about role, responsibilities and accountability are addressed any rebranding and reduction is justmoving the deckchairs on the titanic. It well do nothing to stem the rapid demise of the RDF

[trellheim]

The Grat figures should be known soon and this will give a reasonably accurate number of active RDF troops. Effective and non-effective are not really decent gauges.

In terms of judging accurate numbers, from worst to best

1. Establishment
2. Strength returns .
The above two returns are more or less useless.

3. Effectives at end of year
4. Total number of individuals doing >=7 days FTT whether continuous or not. Since this usually matches up with Grat it's doubly significant

4 is by far the best and usually comes in around 50-60% of effectives

[Cryos]

The scale of issue is there so the entitlement is there which gets rid of one of the storeman's excuses!

By the way kit bags are now called laundry bags (the DPM school bag).

Sadly it doesnt stop the Account holder rejecting it...

[ltsmarty]

The Grat figures should be known soon and this will give a reasonably accurate number of active RDF troops. Effective and non-effective are not really decent gauges.

In terms of judging accurate numbers, from worst to best

1. Establishment
2. Strength returns .
The above two returns are more or less useless.

3. Effectives at end of year
4. Total number of individuals doing >=7 days FTT whether continuous or not. Since this usually matches up with Grat it's doubly significant

4 is by far the best and usually comes in around 50-60% of effectives

- Don't forget that the RDF manday allowance does not entitle all members to partake in 4, so not entirely an accurate reflection.

[Docman]

The answer alot of my colleagues have recently is the DF doesnt provide bags anymore, yet it still exists in the AI. This is the same for many things that are no longer being issued.

Yes, until recently the DF didn't provide clothing bags - that is because changes were made to the clothing bag (went from Green to DPM) and the DF allowed the stores to run down to the point that there were none of th old ones in stores. Hence you couldn't get them. But they are back in stores again (in DPM) and you should be able to get them now.

[ltsmarty]

Point I was making kermit is that the total manday allowance was in & around 30000 for 2012.

Take current body count - 4400 (as of 31 August) x 7 = 30800.
Now this is almost suitable to accommodate all, however 30000 has been the limit for 2010 & 2011, when the body count was higher.
Notwithstanding the accommodation for 14 days for courses, which had an impact on the remaining 30000.

[DeV]

Don't forget 7 days for the assessments as well

[trellheim]

I am not aware of anyone who was denied the opportunity to do 7 days. Whether they could avail of that opportunity was up to them ; thus my calculation. It is easy to pick out ways where it breaks down.

If you take the body count referred to above of 4400, divide by 60% =2640 = 18480 maybe up to another 500 on 14 days = 7000 , which is around 25,500 MD. ...probably not far off the truth ! Finger in the air then 2640 + 500 = 3140


However if you had to do anything with that the profile is all wrong as there are gazillions too many chiefs .... how to fix ? Grade 1 fitness tests annually would solve most of the problem and merit-based postings for officers.

Edit : add 3-5 years max service for all ranks above Sgt, unless promoted. Up or out.