Big reserve forces cuts inbound

Karma

War Hero
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 I´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.
 
Not R Sigs, it's R Signals. Just a minor point, but one that is fairly emotive to them...

Anyway, back to the chocolate and rule of the road, such an exciting life I lead!
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
"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."

The stated CCs requirement for TA assistance in anything right now is currently zero. There is no requirement for TA assistance full stop in this area. This is one of the reasons why the review is occuring.
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
alfred_the_great said:
Not R Sigs, it's R Signals.

They are as bad as we are:

From WIRE, the Corps Magazine (Jun 03) "ROYAL SIGNALS MANNING & CAREER MANAGEMENT DIVISION- by Maj CM Vaudin INTRODUCTION - By Col JE Richardson MBE, Colonel RSigs/Int Corps, MCM Div"

In fact MCM Div used this abbreviation for the Corps in 99% of its correspondance.

Sorry, bollocks I know, gardening leave is dullllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
 

Karma

War Hero
Purple_twiglet said:
The stated CCs requirement for TA assistance in anything right now is currently zero. There is no requirement for TA assistance full stop in this area. This is one of the reasons why the review is occuring.

Interesting, that's a bit of an about turn from a couple of years ago. Doesn't entirely gel with other things that are going on, but it may be that they've been asked to contribute to the funding hence any requirement evaporating.
 
Just as a matter of interest, where is the line drawn between the role of reservists with relevant industry expereience and civil service/govt contractors? Certainly I know of many reservists in the IT industry who could provide system if not architecture support, other commercially minded people could provide defence procurement support and some personel could provide infrastructure planning for rebuilding of contries. Is this an area up for discussion or is it cutting across too many political fiefdoms?
 

itsamuppet

Lantern Swinger
Does this mean that we may get rid of some of those personnel that are sat in billets, never been deployed and haven't even done their qualifying courses for their Rates (LRCC or SRCC). Yet because they are someones yes men, this seems to get overlooked and holds up promotion for others that have put themselves forward. I can think of at least 2 chiefs that fit the bill and are only qualified for killick (some would question that).

Surely by now all the dispensations should have been waivered, we've had enough time since the new rules came in to get on a course to qualify. If you haven't then that shows lack of commitment.
 

Karma

War Hero
left_handed_sailor said:
Just as a matter of interest, where is the line drawn between the role of reservists with relevant industry expereience and civil service/govt contractors? Certainly I know of many reservists in the IT industry who could provide system if not architecture support, other commercially minded people could provide defence procurement support and some personel could provide infrastructure planning for rebuilding of contries. Is this an area up for discussion or is it cutting across too many political fiefdoms?

That looks to be more FTRS related than deployability, there used to be FTRS opportunities in DPA and DLO and I'm sure these, or similar, remain.
 
Top