Does MTO have a future?

marvin

Midshipman
#1
Despite all the good work done in Dubai plus the work done by MTO officers and ratings in Cairo (pre TELIC), Iraq & Kuwait (TELIC) as well as the Eastern Mediterranean (for Lebanon), our current Commodore seems to think that there is no place for MTO and it should be split up to support C4ISR.

Does anyone know whether the Commodore is just being badly briefed or is he really as intellectually challenged and out of touch as he appears?

I accept that he is not MTO by background himself and therefore MTO successes do not contribute to his primary focus (ie self promotion) but whether by Mobilisation, Recall, FTRS or just turning up MTO has proven itself time and again (just ask the Chamber of Shipping) and to make implications/suggestions (as he has very recently) that MTO has no future in the RNR is appalling, demotivating and simply incorrect.
 

TF110

Lantern Swinger
#2
where on earth did you get that idea from? The Cdre never hinted at such a matter to the C4ISR crew a few weeks ago!
 
#3
I have no idea where the idea that MTO has now future, it does.

Why?

- because the Battlestaff increasingly are asking for NCAGS and AWNIS support;
- the RN can see that MTO brings badly needs skills to interface between the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy
- the RN can see the quality of MTO personnel that have been deployed either mobilised, on FTRS or on exercise.

So can we please put this rumour to bed, MTO is secure and has a future.
 

marvin

Midshipman
#4
Delighted to hear support for MTO exists - I know it does because I have heard the same comments from shipping industry organisations plus FLEET & MBS staff among a number of others - I return to the question of whether our Commodore shares that sentiment however.

When asked where ratings and officers could be found to fill C4ISR gaps did he suggested MTO? (and we aren't talking small numbers either so the effect of trawling large chunks out of MTO would have a very significant impact).
 
#5
marvin said:
Delighted to hear support for MTO exists - I know it does because I have heard the same comments from shipping industry organisations plus FLEET & MBS staff among a number of others - I return to the question of whether our Commodore shares that sentiment however.

When asked where ratings and officers could be found to fill C4ISR gaps did he suggested MTO? (and we aren't talking small numbers either so the effect of trawling large chunks out of MTO would have a very significant impact).
MARVIN
The Commodore certainly does see a place for MTO, hence the current mobilisation to help with quick pointy things in sandy places.
Your comments are off the mark by a long way ??

I am MTO and believe me he is very well informed. He has not said that MTO has no place, quite the contrary.

MTO is massively overborne against the requirement set by the RN so there will inevitably have to be some changes. Try not to believe all the voices in your head .
 

marvin

Midshipman
#6
Can I borrow your rose-tinted sunglasses please MC?

Interested to hear that you consider the role of MTO (Maritime Trade Operations) is to man stuff to deal with "quick pointy things in sandy places" - are my comments really that far off the mark?

By the way, I have spelled out what the acronym MTO means because it seems pretty clear to me that you and the Commodore don't
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#9
Look, MTO has been through a challenging few years, but if you look at the statistics, it is one of the most overborne branches going as a result of previous mergers and amalgamations - particularly with OPS(HQ) a few years back.
The branch is busy, it is employed and does a lot of useful work. However my own view is that other branches are short - if change occurs it will be because people are asked to move over to help out the RNR as a whole (The greater good not the private navy).
Stop whining - the branch is safe, you've had categorical reassurance from very well placed people - you're now coming across as completely paranoid.
 

marvin

Midshipman
#11
Purple_twiglet said:
Look, MTO has been through a challenging few years, but if you look at the statistics, it is one of the most overborne branches going as a result of previous mergers and amalgamations - particularly with OPS(HQ) a few years back. .


Noted and agreed

Purple_twiglet said:
The branch is busy, it is employed and does a lot of useful work. .


It is busy but is it doing what it should be doing and, if not, is this because there are insufficient/badly defined roles, there is no money, there is insufficient direction etc etc etc

Purple_twiglet said:
However my own view is that other branches are short - if change occurs it will be because people are asked to move over to help out the RNR as a whole .


Noted and agreed - though our job is to help out the RN not the RNR!

Purple_twiglet said:
(The greater good not the private navy). .
Who's talking about a private navy?

Purple_twiglet said:
Stop whining - the branch is safe, you've had categorical reassurance from very well placed people - you're now coming across as completely paranoid.
Not whining - pointing out issues - why don't you want open discussion (including some realistic concerns) to be exposed on this forum?
 
#12
It seems pretty reasonable to me for Marvin to question the "role" for MTO and for MC to come back with the corporate chant - "The Commodore certainly does see a place for MTO, hence the current mobilisation to help with quick pointy things in sandy places" seems to be very much missing the point (pardon the pun).

The RNR has specialisations because we have always been told that we offer specialist skills - if we are meant to be an RN version of a box of Lego - click it all together to meet any requirement - then we have a very different role indeed (across the entire RNR).

1. The MTO teams deployed to "shoot down pointy things" have been put through a very quick training programme to get them up to speed.
2. This training has no relation to any New Entry training they may have done, or any Specialisation (NCAGS/AWNIS/OPS(HQ) etc) training
3. In effect you could probably have achieved the same effect by dragging a bunch of newbies off the street.

IMO Marvin is quite right - but has stopped too short - he should be asking "Does the RNR have a role?" if our success or failure can be measured simply on how many bodies we Mobilise irrespective of whether they do so in the roles for which they have been trained.
 
#15
broadside said:
It seems pretty reasonable to me for Marvin to question the "role" for MTO and for MC to come back with the corporate chant - "The Commodore certainly does see a place for MTO, hence the current mobilisation to help with quick pointy things in sandy places" seems to be very much missing the point (pardon the pun).

The RNR has specialisations because we have always been told that we offer specialist skills - if we are meant to be an RN version of a box of Lego - click it all together to meet any requirement - then we have a very different role indeed (across the entire RNR).

1. The MTO teams deployed to "shoot down pointy things" have been put through a very quick training programme to get them up to speed.
2. This training has no relation to any New Entry training they may have done, or any Specialisation (NCAGS/AWNIS/OPS(HQ) etc) training
3. In effect you could probably have achieved the same effect by dragging a bunch of newbies off the street.

IMO Marvin is quite right - but has stopped too short - he should be asking "Does the RNR have a role?" if our success or failure can be measured simply on how many bodies we Mobilise irrespective of whether they do so in the roles for which they have been trained.
Broadside
I agree, the roles that we are being asked to perform in this instance are not what the ratings concerned were trained for and we could probably have used more "generalist" bodies if they were available.

This is an indicator that "Fleet" or who ever our employer(s) might be, decide where and what they want us to do. If we are required to do things out of our normal "comfort zone" then perhaps we need to produce ratings trained in generalist skills then "adqual" them to fit a purpose when that purpose arrives.

We are not masters of our own destiny here.

I dont think (with a few exceptions) that niche skills are any longer our primary USP.

Its a different RNR than it was 5, 10 , 15 (pick a number) years ago.

The RN is very stretched as are all the armed services, the day was bound to come when our flexibility would be tested
 

sulzer

Lantern Swinger
#16
MTO: Is that the former NCS Branch? The RNR attaitude seems different from 15 years ago. Mind you everything changed after 1982 when the condition allowing "call up" of reservists were eased no longer was the declarartion of war necessary. With this went considerable financial benefits, the bounty went up from about £40.
 
#18
Does it really matter if ratings from the MTO branch are being used for other roles, as long as the MTO committment is still being fulfilled?

The role of the RNR is to support the RN in whatever fashion it needs us, so in conclusion I personally believe that there is a future for the MTO branch, as indicated by the requirement that it fulfills, but in a certain case reservists are being called to perform a different job for which they haven't originally been trained.

What Fleet wants is what we deliver.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
The_Caretaker Miscellaneous 0
S The Fleet 4
S RMR 19

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts