Amazon
eBay
ARRSE
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New reviews
New profile posts
Latest activity
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
Latest reviews
Search reviews
RRpedia
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Home
Forums
Royal Navy Branches
Royal Naval Reserve (RNR)
Big reserve forces cuts inbound
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Karma" data-source="post: 724601" data-attributes="member: 2593"><p>fwiw I saw it before and after the edits, and perhaps I just have a wholly different view of <em>scathing</em> than you do.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, more to the point.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Still, all just speculation at this time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Karma, post: 724601, member: 2593"] fwiw I saw it before and after the edits, and perhaps I just have a wholly different view of [i]scathing[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Royal Navy Branches
Royal Naval Reserve (RNR)
Big reserve forces cuts inbound
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
What's new
Log in
Register
Search
Top
