A Very Intresting Read!!

[top_mast]

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506964.pdf

The above publication is an intresting read.

As it is a report on the Naval Reserves it would have been good to have photographs of Naval Reservists!! I cant remember the last time a Reservist was allowed to climb a mast and use a volt meter on kit!!

 

[GCYZ]

Have had a quick scan and it all seems very positive. Just hope the powers that be pick up on the recomendations. Worrying that we (RNR) are 1000 under strength. Interesting that 81% of regulars not asked to join the (Volunteer) Reserves. Definitley missing a trick there.

 

[PartTimer]

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506964.pdf

The above publication is an intresting read.

As it is a report on the Naval Reserves it would have been good to have photographs of Naval Reservists!! I cant remember the last time a Reservist was allowed to climb a mast and use a volt meter on kit!!

Yes, an intersting read - and save yourself £12.25 by reading it online.

Apart from the photographs, a mistake I noticed straight off is the commitment for volunteer reserves described in the first diagram - "The minimum commitment is 27 days training per annum (or 19 days for some specialist units)." That's not right for the RNR anyway!

Eye opening to see the massive shortfall in strength versus requirement:

RNR
Requirement: 3,400
Strength: 2,460

RMR
Requirement: 990
Strength: 750

TA and RAuxAF seem to be in the same boat.

 

[Old_Hand]

http//www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506964.pdf

The above publication is an intresting read.

As it is a report on the Naval Reserves it would have been good to have photographs of Naval Reservists!! I cant remember the last time a Reservist was allowed to climb a mast and use a volt meter on kit!!

Yes, an intersting read - and save yourself £12.25 by reading it online.

Apart from the photographs, a mistake I noticed straight off is the commitment for volunteer reserves described in the first diagram - "The minimum commitment is 27 days training per annum (or 19 days for some specialist units)." That's not right for the RNR anyway!

Eye opening to see the massive shortfall in strength versus requirement

RNR
Requirement 3,400
Strength 2,460

RMR
Requirement 990
Strength 750

TA and RAuxAF seem to be in the same boat.

Re the RNR strength - is that trained strength or total number including untrained people?.

 

[PartTimer]

http//www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506964.pdf

The above publication is an intresting read.

As it is a report on the Naval Reserves it would have been good to have photographs of Naval Reservists!! I cant remember the last time a Reservist was allowed to climb a mast and use a volt meter on kit!!

Yes, an intersting read - and save yourself £12.25 by reading it online.

Apart from the photographs, a mistake I noticed straight off is the commitment for volunteer reserves described in the first diagram - "The minimum commitment is 27 days training per annum (or 19 days for some specialist units)." That's not right for the RNR anyway!

Eye opening to see the massive shortfall in strength versus requirement

RNR
Requirement 3,400
Strength 2,460

RMR
Requirement 990
Strength 750

TA and RAuxAF seem to be in the same boat.

Re the RNR strength - is that trained strength or total number including untrained people?.

I had thought about that too. From the rest of the document I suspect its total numbers, as they frequently highlight the problems of recruitment and retention. This seems to be a common problem across many of the nations (see Appendix 4).

More worryingly both for the RNR and RMR are comments like:

However, beyond the very high-level statements in the Maritime Intent the requirement for Royal Naval Reserves and Royal Marines Reserves is unclear. The overall requirement for naval capability is set out in the Royal Naval Strategic Plan, but neither this document nor its associated performance plan detail what the requirement for Reserves is. A Reserves Integration Project within the Royal Navy, aiming to establish the requirement, readiness profile and competencies required of Reservists, is at a very early stage ... However, the Service is currently subject to significant manning shortfalls amongst Regular personnel, which are causing overstretch on enduring operations and standing tasks. Despite the Maritime Intent, almost no use is being made of Reservists in these roles either. Given this, and the absence of a clearly articulated requirement, a question remains as to whether the Department is managing the Royal Naval Reserve in a way which optimises its operational capability and cost-effectiveness.

 

[GCYZ]

More worryingly both for the RNR and RMR are comments like:

However, beyond the very high-level statements in the Maritime Intent the requirement for Royal Naval Reserves and Royal Marines Reserves is unclear. The overall requirement for naval capability is set out in the Royal Naval Strategic Plan, but neither this document nor its associated performance plan detail what the requirement for Reserves is. A Reserves Integration Project within the Royal Navy, aiming to establish the requirement, readiness profile and competencies required of Reservists, is at a very early stage ... However, the Service is currently subject to significant manning shortfalls amongst Regular personnel, which are causing overstretch on enduring operations and standing tasks. Despite the Maritime Intent, almost no use is being made of Reservists in these roles either. Given this, and the absence of a clearly articulated requirement, a question remains as to whether the Department is managing the Royal Naval Reserve in a way which optimises its operational capability and cost-effectiveness.

Well Spotted, however if you quoted the full article its puts it in a better light. (bits left out in bold)

"The Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Marines Reserve are working towards greater integration between Regulars and Reserves but more needs to be done to ensure clarity of purpose

3.18 The ‘Maritime Intent for Reserves’ was issued in 2005 with a vision that Maritime Reserves – both Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves – will be fully integrated with the Regular Royal Navy and Royal Marines. They are intended both to augment Regular Forces on operations, and to support standing strategic tasks, such as the North and South Atlantic patrols. To enable this, the structure of the two organisations has been changed. Since January 2006, responsibility for both has been unified under a single Commander of Maritime Reserves who reports to the operational head of the Royal Navy.

3.19 However beyond the very high-level statements in the Maritime Intent the requirement for Royal Naval Reserves and Royal Marines Reserves is unclear. The overall requirement for naval capability is set out in the Royal Naval Strategic Plan, but neither this document nor its associated performance plan detail what the requirement for Reserves is. A Reserves Integration Project within the Royal Navy, aiming to establish the requirement, readiness profile and competencies required of Reservists, is at a very early stage. As part of this work, the ‘owners’ of capability within the Royal Navy have undertaken to agree a detailed requirement for Reservists with Commander Maritime Reserves.

3.20 Some 358 Royal Naval Reservists and 112 Royal Marines Reservists were deployed for the first two phases of Operation TELIC. Currently, the Royal Navy is not as heavily committed to operations as the other Services and, consequently, almost no Royal Naval Reservists are being deployed. However, the Service is currently subject to significant manning shortfalls amongst Regular personnel, which are causing overstretch on enduring operations and standing tasks. Despite the Maritime Intent, almost no use is being made of Reservists in these roles either. Given this, and the absence of a clearly articulated requirement, a question remains as to whether the Department is managing the Royal Naval Reserve in a way which optimises its operational capability and cost-effectiveness."

What would be more worrying is that if CMR had not identified this already and was taking steps to rectify the the situation. Anything I've heard from the furherbunker in recent months supports this. God knows we have mostly been fumbling in the dark for over 10 years.

 

[PartTimer]

More worryingly both for the RNR and RMR are comments like:

However, beyond the very high-level statements in the Maritime Intent the requirement for Royal Naval Reserves and Royal Marines Reserves is unclear. The overall requirement for naval capability is set out in the Royal Naval Strategic Plan, but neither this document nor its associated performance plan detail what the requirement for Reserves is. A Reserves Integration Project within the Royal Navy, aiming to establish the requirement, readiness profile and competencies required of Reservists, is at a very early stage ... However, the Service is currently subject to significant manning shortfalls amongst Regular personnel, which are causing overstretch on enduring operations and standing tasks. Despite the Maritime Intent, almost no use is being made of Reservists in these roles either. Given this, and the absence of a clearly articulated requirement, a question remains as to whether the Department is managing the Royal Naval Reserve in a way which optimises its operational capability and cost-effectiveness.

Well Spotted, however if you quoted the full article its puts it in a better light. (bits left out in bold)

"The Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Marines Reserve are working towards greater integration between Regulars and Reserves but more needs to be done to ensure clarity of purpose

3.18 The ‘Maritime Intent for Reserves’ was issued in 2005 with a vision that Maritime Reserves – both Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves – will be fully integrated with the Regular Royal Navy and Royal Marines. They are intended both to augment Regular Forces on operations, and to support standing strategic tasks, such as the North and South Atlantic patrols. To enable this, the structure of the two organisations has been changed. Since January 2006, responsibility for both has been unified under a single Commander of Maritime Reserves who reports to the operational head of the Royal Navy.

3.19 However beyond the very high-level statements in the Maritime Intent the requirement for Royal Naval Reserves and Royal Marines Reserves is unclear. The overall requirement for naval capability is set out in the Royal Naval Strategic Plan, but neither this document nor its associated performance plan detail what the requirement for Reserves is. A Reserves Integration Project within the Royal Navy, aiming to establish the requirement, readiness profile and competencies required of Reservists, is at a very early stage. As part of this work, the ‘owners’ of capability within the Royal Navy have undertaken to agree a detailed requirement for Reservists with Commander Maritime Reserves.

3.20 Some 358 Royal Naval Reservists and 112 Royal Marines Reservists were deployed for the first two phases of Operation TELIC. Currently, the Royal Navy is not as heavily committed to operations as the other Services and, consequently, almost no Royal Naval Reservists are being deployed. However, the Service is currently subject to significant manning shortfalls amongst Regular personnel, which are causing overstretch on enduring operations and standing tasks. Despite the Maritime Intent, almost no use is being made of Reservists in these roles either. Given this, and the absence of a clearly articulated requirement, a question remains as to whether the Department is managing the Royal Naval Reserve in a way which optimises its operational capability and cost-effectiveness."

What would be more worrying is that if CMR had not identified this already and was taking steps to rectify the the situation. Anything I've heard from the furherbunker in recent months supports this. God knows we have mostly been fumbling in the dark for over 10 years.

Yes, admit that I rather cherry picked that passage! As you say though, what have we been doing since '94? Other parts of the report are rather more flattering of the RNR though; I was surprised to learn that the RNR is the only reserve service to actively recruit ex-regulars, and the RNR/RMR have much better systems in place to determine who is on the trained strength.

The RAuxAF seemed to be pretty swept up though, and this reflects my experience of them.

 

[GCYZ]

Was a bit concened that they only visited one RU (PRESIDENT). No reflection on PRESIDENT but surely in the interest of balance other unts should ahve been visited. eg one north, one south?

 

[GCYZ]

Was a bit concened that they only visited one RU (PRESIDENT). No reflection on PRESIDENT but surely in the interest of balance other unts should ahve been visited. eg one north, one south?

 

[PartTimer]

Was a bit concened that they only visited one RU (PRESIDENT). No reflection on PRESIDENT but surely in the interest of balance other unts should ahve been visited. eg one north, one south?

Yes, saw that too! Hardly the most representative of RUs either, though which one is?

 

[Reservist-Monkey]

Anyone but them?

 

[MasterChief]

I think both of the units mentioned are extremely good RUs in many measurable ways. I have visited every unit in the past two years, more than once in some instances and PRESIDENT people are generally top-notch, despite the usual boring uninformed comments made about PRESIDENT and its people.

 

[MasterChief]

CORRECTION TO MY LAST DASA-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think PRESIDENT is an extremely good RU in many measurable ways. I have visited every unit in the past two years, more than once in some instances and PRESIDENT people are generally top-notch, despite the usual boring uninformed comments made about PRESIDENT and its people. Being one of the largest if not the largest unit in the RNR means they ofer critical mass when conducting surveys and can offer more views than smaller units

 

[PartTimer]

CORRECTION TO MY LAST DASA-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think PRESIDENT is an extremely good RU in many measurable ways. I have visited every unit in the past two years, more than once in some instances and PRESIDENT people are generally top-notch, despite the usual boring uninformed comments made about PRESIDENT and its people. Being one of the largest if not the largest unit in the RNR means they ofer critical mass when conducting surveys and can offer more views than smaller units

I think that's precisely my point MC. I'm not President but I recognise they are a good unit and draw from a pool of very talented people. Interviewing what may very well be the 'best' RU from a wealthy area may not result in representative views. For that matter, neither are KA or Vivid, as their locations result in a large proportion of ex-regulars.

 

[MasterChief]

I guess surveys of this type are never fully representative of everyones varying points of views. However, i think overall the results offer some valid and not totally critical/negative views.

 

[GCYZ]

CORRECTION TO MY LAST DASA-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think PRESIDENT is an extremely good RU in many measurable ways. I have visited every unit in the past two years, more than once in some instances and PRESIDENT people are generally top-notch, despite the usual boring uninformed comments made about PRESIDENT and its people. Being one of the largest if not the largest unit in the RNR means they ofer critical mass when conducting surveys and can offer more views than smaller units

I think that's precisely my point MC. I'm not President but I recognise they are a good unit and draw from a pool of very talented people. Interviewing what may very well be the 'best' RU from a wealthy area may not result in representative views. For that matter, neither are KA or Vivid, as their locations result in a large proportion of ex-regulars.

Should have gone to the current holder's of the Thornycroft Trophy! That way they can see the unit the High Command hold in highest esteem. Hard to argue with that!

 

[Jim30]

Yawn,

very tired of the President bashing - as usual people are trying to offload the large chips on their shoulder. Also as usual those who critcise are probably the ones who've never been to President.

Grow up and get a life, I wish people could focus on more important things than slagging off my unit for no good reason.

 

[PartTimer]

Yawn,

very tired of the President bashing - as usual people are trying to offload the large chips on their shoulder. Also as usual those who critcise are probably the ones who've never been to President.

Grow up and get a life, I wish people could focus on more important things than slagging off my unit for no good reason.

What on earth are you talking about? Nobody was President bashing that I can detect here - perhaps you are being a bit over sensitive? The comments related to whether the NAO should have gone to more than 1 unit, and whether President is representative given it's high calibre of recruit as the result of its location. How on earth can you read that as President bashing?

In fact, it's only on this forum that I've come across this supposed 'President bashing' story. OK, I've only been in the RNR for a few years, but I've never heard of anyone decrying President or its personnel. Have I been leading a sheltered life?

 

[wysiwyg]

Yes!

 

[Shakey]

I wish people could focus on more important things than slagging off my unit for no good reason.

God, I was at President for a few years and I could give you quite a few good reasons!