Purple_twiglet said:I did look at what WD said, and I note that his deleted areas refer to capabilities that are public knowledge. I also note that his hugely scathing attack on the Mods request to edit has now been edited since this afternoon - how convenient!
Sorry to seem cyncial, and IÂ´m usually one for observing PERSEC / OPSEC requests, but this one just seems silly.
fwiw I saw it before and after the edits, and perhaps I just have a wholly different view of scathing than you do.
Anyway, more to the point.
The R.Sigs TA organisaiton does contain quite a lot of legacy capability which could probably do with being culled. Personally I would hope that any review takes into account the requirements of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, although that would probably require some investment to bring the MACA/ MACP capability up to scratch. Whilst we're no longer looking at a post-nuclear recovery a range of potential scenarios exist.
I would also query the point about footprint, the same issue that the RNR has about RTUs and the specialisations. Reducing geographic coverage risks exacerbating the recruiting problem. Units like LIAG can survive, but their contribution is very specialised and the members of that unit don't tend to do full deployments. I'm unconvinced that's a sustainable model for the rest of the force.
Still, all just speculation at this time.