We have a Commission on the Defence Forces incoming and I thought I’d put my views to paper and see if I can illicit any opinion or discussion. I’m from the reserve and specifically NSR side of the house. That’s thus the focus of my commentary. This could get long winded!
The points referring specifically to the reserve in announcement are as follows:
• The Commission will consider and recommend the appropriate structure and size of the Permanent Defence Force (PDF) and the Reserve Defence Force (RDF). This will encompass consideration of appropriate capabilities, structures and staffing for the Army, and its brigade structure, the Air Corps and the Naval Service along with the appropriate balance and disposition of personnel and structures across a joint force approach in the land, air, maritime, cyber, intelligence and space domains.
• With regard to the RDF, the Commission will consider a wide range of options and will make recommendations to better leverage the capabilities of the RDF in their supports to the PDF and to make service in the RDF a more attractive option.
At a high level, I can see any reorganisation of the RDF going two directions. Single force concept applying to both.
- A reorganisation as occurred a decade ago which essentially just moves around the chess pieces with no additional resources.
- A reorganisation that provides the reserve with significant additional resourcing. Increasing this by multiples would still result in only a very fractional increase in defence spending.
What do we want from the Reserve?
As things stand – the RDF lacks direction or a sense of purpose. Should we be focussed on aid to civil power tasks or should we be providing a structure which can be expanded upon in case of hostilities? I see two potential options here.
We either become a source of local defence combat power which lines up well with the large number of infantry units within the AR and the port security role of the NSR. The other option is to move towards a role where the RDF could provide more ‘tail’ if the DF ever needed to increase in size. That would mean rerolling units into the support arms. Converting infantry and cavalry to transport, engineering and CIS. This could synergise nicely with reservists’ civilian skills.
A key change would be providing these units over time with their own organic assets, so they supplement DF capabilities. An RDF transport company with light trucks could prove especially useful during any of the ACP taskings that seem to have become more prevalent recently – transport during Covid, storms or flooding. I say decide what we want from the reserve and equip it to complete the role.
Reserve units could provide additional capability that wouldn’t be efficient to maintain on a full-time basis but would provide fantastic surge capability for the state.
Training
Training is key. This would need to be provided at least to the level that our nearest neighbours do in the UK with structured courses run on a well-resourced basis. Modularity could help but reservists would need to accept that 2–3-week FTT may be required to get some serious training done. People are busy and often it is easier just to book 2 weeks off (6 months in advance and not 6 weeks) rather than manage over 4-5 weekends. We all know how many drop outs you encounter running training on weekends.
Courses to be organised and planned with a calendar available every January 1st with courses taking place in Q1 and into Q2 having time at least set aside before that. Example: Have two large Mod 2B driving courses each year for the reserve with one run as week long course and the other modular. If selected for the course, you can choose which suits depending on availability.
Resourcing would be exceptionally important. More PDF staff once again allocated to facilitate greater support and training. I know the PDF has its own retention issues but I’m assuming that this Commission will hopefully largely remedy those.
The RDF needs to get to a level where it is taken seriously by the public and the PDF. I know there are diligent and professional members on this board, but we know the organisation is very much a mixed bag when it comes to commitment and ability.
Keeping joiners in and engaged
We aren’t in the 80s or 90s anymore and there are far more outlets for young people. We must provide an excellent value proposition where the organisation retains joiners rather than the sliding door recruitment of the past where many just appeared for 2-3 Summers and disappeared. There will be always be those who just want to join for a short time but units need to be manned by more than just a small core of die hards with recruits and privates just being transient. We need to retain privates and JNCOs for years if possible.
How do we do this? More and better structured and resourced training. Remuneration is also key here, however. I strongly believe that all activities need to be paid for once they are being performed in a planned and structured manner. Pay to be maintained at PDF level without MSA. Increments allowed but at far lower rate than PDF. One increment, every 4/5 years?
Fitness Testing on a Sunday – One day’s pay.
TOETs in advance of a range on a Saturday – One day’s pay.
Parade night – One quarter day’s pay.
It’s small money in the grand scheme of things and just adds that little added incentive that might keep a younger person 18-22 engaged.
The gratuity needs to come back but it should have a high barrier to receive.
- 19 days plus man days completed for year.
- ALL KPIs up to date including fitness test. No exceptions.
- Doesn’t include man days for attending parade nights.
- Must include at least 7 days FTT unit training a or a course.
- All other days can add to total.
Final Points
R5 to be either completely overhauled or just replaced. It’s not fit for purpose and lacks in far too many areas where it falls down especially with regards promotions and removal of those not contributing.
We could provide for a proper merit-based promotion system which could be centralised and semi outside of local unit level. The RDF is full of dead wood that and we should be easily able to remove non performers whether they have 20 years behind them as an NCO or a commission. If they can’t pass a LIFE test or aren’t turning up, they should be gone. Maintaining numbers for appearances should stop and dealt with harshly when found to have occurred.
Finally, we need to be equipped better at the personal level. My scale of issue is currently one set of GDR (Naval Service working dress). If I hadn’t ‘acquired’ a second set, I would have found myself on FTT on a patrol with only a single uniform. That’s ridiculous as I would have struggled to wash the set I had and maintain my availability. The same goes for other issued kit asides ordnance. I should have the same kit as a PDF sailor when I join a ship or go on a course. Concerns about issuing kit to those who will just leave the following year could be remedied by issuing this in a phased manner once they have proven their worth to the RDF with time served and KPIs etc met.
I think we could and should look at the British Army Reserve and the RNR as potential models? I don’t see why we couldn’t achieve the level they are at (I know they also have flaws) with a lot of extra resourcing and a few years effort. Part of me thinks we would be as well off just to disband the RDF if we just receive some lip service and vague promises of more training time after this commission. We need to be a functioning reserve in our totality rather than mixed back of semi-professionals, hobbyists and those there for social reasons.
There are my ramblings on the issue anyway and I would also like to strongly state that I believe the PDF should rightly dominate this Commission and their concerns are of the upmost priority. I just hope there is some space for the RDF in this review.
The points referring specifically to the reserve in announcement are as follows:
• The Commission will consider and recommend the appropriate structure and size of the Permanent Defence Force (PDF) and the Reserve Defence Force (RDF). This will encompass consideration of appropriate capabilities, structures and staffing for the Army, and its brigade structure, the Air Corps and the Naval Service along with the appropriate balance and disposition of personnel and structures across a joint force approach in the land, air, maritime, cyber, intelligence and space domains.
• With regard to the RDF, the Commission will consider a wide range of options and will make recommendations to better leverage the capabilities of the RDF in their supports to the PDF and to make service in the RDF a more attractive option.
At a high level, I can see any reorganisation of the RDF going two directions. Single force concept applying to both.
- A reorganisation as occurred a decade ago which essentially just moves around the chess pieces with no additional resources.
- A reorganisation that provides the reserve with significant additional resourcing. Increasing this by multiples would still result in only a very fractional increase in defence spending.
What do we want from the Reserve?
As things stand – the RDF lacks direction or a sense of purpose. Should we be focussed on aid to civil power tasks or should we be providing a structure which can be expanded upon in case of hostilities? I see two potential options here.
We either become a source of local defence combat power which lines up well with the large number of infantry units within the AR and the port security role of the NSR. The other option is to move towards a role where the RDF could provide more ‘tail’ if the DF ever needed to increase in size. That would mean rerolling units into the support arms. Converting infantry and cavalry to transport, engineering and CIS. This could synergise nicely with reservists’ civilian skills.
A key change would be providing these units over time with their own organic assets, so they supplement DF capabilities. An RDF transport company with light trucks could prove especially useful during any of the ACP taskings that seem to have become more prevalent recently – transport during Covid, storms or flooding. I say decide what we want from the reserve and equip it to complete the role.
Reserve units could provide additional capability that wouldn’t be efficient to maintain on a full-time basis but would provide fantastic surge capability for the state.
Training
Training is key. This would need to be provided at least to the level that our nearest neighbours do in the UK with structured courses run on a well-resourced basis. Modularity could help but reservists would need to accept that 2–3-week FTT may be required to get some serious training done. People are busy and often it is easier just to book 2 weeks off (6 months in advance and not 6 weeks) rather than manage over 4-5 weekends. We all know how many drop outs you encounter running training on weekends.
Courses to be organised and planned with a calendar available every January 1st with courses taking place in Q1 and into Q2 having time at least set aside before that. Example: Have two large Mod 2B driving courses each year for the reserve with one run as week long course and the other modular. If selected for the course, you can choose which suits depending on availability.
Resourcing would be exceptionally important. More PDF staff once again allocated to facilitate greater support and training. I know the PDF has its own retention issues but I’m assuming that this Commission will hopefully largely remedy those.
The RDF needs to get to a level where it is taken seriously by the public and the PDF. I know there are diligent and professional members on this board, but we know the organisation is very much a mixed bag when it comes to commitment and ability.
Keeping joiners in and engaged
We aren’t in the 80s or 90s anymore and there are far more outlets for young people. We must provide an excellent value proposition where the organisation retains joiners rather than the sliding door recruitment of the past where many just appeared for 2-3 Summers and disappeared. There will be always be those who just want to join for a short time but units need to be manned by more than just a small core of die hards with recruits and privates just being transient. We need to retain privates and JNCOs for years if possible.
How do we do this? More and better structured and resourced training. Remuneration is also key here, however. I strongly believe that all activities need to be paid for once they are being performed in a planned and structured manner. Pay to be maintained at PDF level without MSA. Increments allowed but at far lower rate than PDF. One increment, every 4/5 years?
Fitness Testing on a Sunday – One day’s pay.
TOETs in advance of a range on a Saturday – One day’s pay.
Parade night – One quarter day’s pay.
It’s small money in the grand scheme of things and just adds that little added incentive that might keep a younger person 18-22 engaged.
The gratuity needs to come back but it should have a high barrier to receive.
- 19 days plus man days completed for year.
- ALL KPIs up to date including fitness test. No exceptions.
- Doesn’t include man days for attending parade nights.
- Must include at least 7 days FTT unit training a or a course.
- All other days can add to total.
Final Points
R5 to be either completely overhauled or just replaced. It’s not fit for purpose and lacks in far too many areas where it falls down especially with regards promotions and removal of those not contributing.
We could provide for a proper merit-based promotion system which could be centralised and semi outside of local unit level. The RDF is full of dead wood that and we should be easily able to remove non performers whether they have 20 years behind them as an NCO or a commission. If they can’t pass a LIFE test or aren’t turning up, they should be gone. Maintaining numbers for appearances should stop and dealt with harshly when found to have occurred.
Finally, we need to be equipped better at the personal level. My scale of issue is currently one set of GDR (Naval Service working dress). If I hadn’t ‘acquired’ a second set, I would have found myself on FTT on a patrol with only a single uniform. That’s ridiculous as I would have struggled to wash the set I had and maintain my availability. The same goes for other issued kit asides ordnance. I should have the same kit as a PDF sailor when I join a ship or go on a course. Concerns about issuing kit to those who will just leave the following year could be remedied by issuing this in a phased manner once they have proven their worth to the RDF with time served and KPIs etc met.
I think we could and should look at the British Army Reserve and the RNR as potential models? I don’t see why we couldn’t achieve the level they are at (I know they also have flaws) with a lot of extra resourcing and a few years effort. Part of me thinks we would be as well off just to disband the RDF if we just receive some lip service and vague promises of more training time after this commission. We need to be a functioning reserve in our totality rather than mixed back of semi-professionals, hobbyists and those there for social reasons.
There are my ramblings on the issue anyway and I would also like to strongly state that I believe the PDF should rightly dominate this Commission and their concerns are of the upmost priority. I just hope there is some space for the RDF in this review.
Comment