AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capability.

Discussion in 'Royal Naval Reserve (RNR)' started by Karma, Nov 19, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thought that might cause some ructions ;)

    Anyway, I'm not convinced that AWFP is a particularly good game for CMR to be in, given the current climate in defence. Notwithstanding the requirement from Fleet perhaps CMR should be looking to alter how he provides support to his boss, CINCFLEET.

    Providing SPO capabilities to RN ships is a low value, manpower substitution activity which doesn't really provide much of an argument for retaining the RNR. Given the cost of supporting units and the actual deployability of individuals there are alternative methods of delivering. STUFT and RFA could be provided with FP capabilities using Private Military Companies without the hassle of trying to release people from employment.

    The RNR should focus on providing niche capabilities which the RN can't provide on a sustainable basis. That is already done, but the emphasis appears to be on AWFP at the expense of the other branches (merely an observation).

    Food for thought I hope.

  2. Sadly, they're all so niche that nobody has ever needed most of them and the RN is wondering whether it wants the RNR to be a long shot of an insurance policy, or to actually deliver something more often and take a risk that there might be skills/capablity gaps in the naval service in those areas which have so far seldom been needed.

    I actually agree with you, but sadly I don't have my shoulders weighed down with gold or an army of worshippers to re-write the structure of the RNR when I think of a great new name for a branch!

    Is that harsh?
  3. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    I've asked the question before, and not received any answer whatsoever. so which branches does the RN not have a requirement for?

    Well I thought I'd float something other than the usual whinges :D
  4. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Mercenaries are far, far more expensive than reservists, and the legal aspects of putting a squad of headcase retired soldiers answerable only to their short-term contract on an RFA or, sweet Jesus, free to roam around some STUFT vessel, are horrifying.
  5. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Generalisation. Everyone who leaves the AF for the Security Industry is a headcase? Or just the Pongoes?
    Of course, if the money was right, the job would be done by headcase ex-matelots.
  6. See response in other thread about AWFP and cost - as somebody else may have said overall I suspect that AWFP is cheaper than contracting out. However, I don't see why the CMR has problem is with getting people released from employment - CMR should just send a letter calling people out rather than asking for volunteers. Intelligent mobilisation is a misnoma basically they ask for volunteers at the moment there are enough to see us through but eventually people will stop volunteering because they were away 18 months ago for 6 months and feel it's somebody else's turn.

    I volunteered for service with the RN/RNR when I joined way back when I'm happy to go if I get the letter - but I'm not prepared to volunteer for deployment because of family reasons.
  7. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Let's look at it from the point of view of (perhaps potential, or new) RNR ratings for a moment.
    Post-Raleigh, about 2 weeks of training will get you to AB1 in AWFP and hence deployable. It is these kinds of deployment opportunities that many people join for in the first place. Could it be argued then that an attractive feature of AWFP is that its short and simple training package (518, 547, BSSC) makes it good for retention? - since it involves comparatively little time off work (etc) and is a fast route to actually doing something the rating wants to do?

    Obviously it is not about what the members of the branch want; the point I am making is that the current AWFP system could be good for reservist retention because of the above.

    As argued by Karma, AWFP is maybe not exactly what the RN needs from the RNR, but surely having volunteer manpower available to the Navy is better than cutting it out in favour of small niches & losing a lot of personnel that way. The branch training is short and there are plenty of deployments available; this probably keeps many in the RNR - it keeps them from getting bored! The knock-on effect here is that the RNR retains a "critical mass" of manpower necessary to remain a "cost effective" asset to the Navy.

    With apologies for using some pretentious phrases in that last sentence :D
  8. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    I agree with the point you are trying to make but the training is sometimes not as short as you are trying to point out as the AWFP specialisation are now a very deployable asset they are increasing the training matrix to encompass the likes of mini gun, gpmg, armourers courses for the LH and SR's. the deployments are changing as there are not many two to three week deployments out there as fleet are looking for a more long term commitment of 6 months or over. I branch changed from MTO to AWFP as I thought I was and the branch were going no where allowing me to do this was what kept me in the RNR.
  9. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Good point soontobe

    In unit training followed by 2 weeks raleigh, does not give you a rate of AB1, it gives you a new rate of AB2. AB1 comes after further in unit training and further qualifying courses plus sea time.
  10. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    I personally think that AWFP training takes far too long and makes things far less interesting for new recruits. They can do very little in the way of training until they've completed the 518 course, which in most cases is their second years ORT.

    Most of the AWFP weekend and evening training revolves around the rifle and you can't use one unitl you've completed the course. After Raleigh people end up not being able to attend half the weekends until they've completed the 518 course hence bordom sets in quite easily.

    As for getting ORT actually doing the job you have to complete Raleigh, 518, 547, BSSC and First aid. Basically unless you dedicate most of your holidays to the RNR you can't get to actually do the job you want until the fourth year. Far too long. People join to get to sea.

    As for wether the branch is useful i do think that it is geared to much towards SPO/FP or whatever you wish to call it. Why cannot that be a secondary role which allows us to have another trade to be utilised when SPO isnt required?
  11. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    It's not just the AWFP Branch that takes ages to train people to the required standard, Matey. The CIS Branch takes flippin aaaages, BUT there are always opportunities to go to sea as a trainee - or AB2 - or whatever it's called these days. I remember when I first joined all you needed to go to sea was to have a BSSC booked.
    PLUS people don't seem to be mentioning the "jollies" that you can do with the RNR. Since I joined I've been paid to go skiing, mountaineering and I've been sailing in the Med and Croatia. For some reason though the powers that be are always a bit reluctant to "advertise" these things. :pukel:
  12. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Simmo - I think you misread my post. We are saying the same thing:
    after Raleigh, there is a further 15 days ish (517, 547, BSSC) of courses to be rated AB1.

    I think there is a major case for including 518 in the Raleigh new entry course, which could surely be easily done. Perhaps substitute this for the Raleigh sea survival training - as you have to do a BSSC afterwards anyway. I.e. take out the DRIU and Horsea parts of the NE course and do 518 in those days instead. Sensible?

    As I mentioned on another thread a while back, surely it would not be beyond the wit of man to have AWFP ratings trained up in other RN warfare branch roles (those of warfare specialists) - it can't take THAT long to train someone to sit in the ops room surely? This would give the RNR potential to reduce gapping on deploying ships, which would be something REALLY useful for the reserves to do.
  13. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Sorry, Dunkers, yes I did mis read it, just looked back and spotted the POST-Raleigh.
  14. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Simmo, Dunkers I believe they are now looking at cross training between Mine Warfare and AWFP at present due to the shortage of MW ratings in the RNR. They will be trained in SPO and FP but their principal job will be MW.
    There is a weekend being run end of this month as an acquaint for anyone who is interested in finding out about MW specialisation.
  15. During Telic the MW ratings that were mobilised to MCM1, double jobbed afloat i.e. OPS Room work plus Force Protection a good example of an RNR rating fulfilling two roles offering good value for certainly took the boredom out of the FP as you werent stuck on the UD 24/7.
  16. Re: AWFP is a dead end and CMR should get rid of the capabil

    Yes, it does take that long to train some-one to be effective in the Ops Room. I believe that the current Warfare Specialist training is in the region of 10 weeks, and that is only to TPS. Add in the task book for OPS, then you are looking at 12 months to become worthwhile in the Ops Room. Add in the problems with 4 different combat systems, remembering how to use each of them effectively, do you have spare sets in the RTCs to allow practice on a drill night?

    And to top it off, there are rarely any seats in the Ops room that only need filling on a weekend....

    so, nice idea, but not so much, sorry!

Share This Page