Link to strategic review of the Reserves

Discussion in 'Royal Naval Reserve (RNR)' started by Purple_twiglet, Apr 28, 2009.

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. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

  2. hackle

    hackle Badgeman Moderator

    I appreciate that this site was having problems at the time the announcements were made earlier today.

    Any thoughts on the recommendations which affect the Maritime Reserve?
  3. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I'll admit to not reading it all but recommendation and key finding No 5 to meet strategic recommendations 1,2 and 6: The Naval Service should refine its reserve capability requirement.......... does refine = reduce?

    Recommendation 6: The Royal Navy should refine the required level of Royal Navy reserve MTDs........................... again refine?

    Strategic recommendations 1, 2 and 6 are about effort & effectiveness, balance of liability and training delivery

    I'm sure the RNR guys will have something to say, unless of course they have all been scared away by their branch manager spouting off.
  4. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    Basically on MTDs it says that 24 isn't enough and we need more to be a more effective force.
  5. ...or reduce the training required in order to attain trained strength. One recommendation appears to be that personnel will be generalists first that can be employed in a wide variety of roles that the RN requires now and only later specialise in the roles we know today.
  6. It's pretty clear 24 days aren't enough.

    Personally, I'd support an initial engagement of five years, in which the first two years require a 40-50 day commitment to get the key skills squared away, with the next two years at the c. 30 day mark. The fifth year would include an Op tour and then... If you want to stay in and they want you to stay in, great. Else, bye.

    In return, you'd get a fair rate for a fair day's work and get some substantial bonuses. This would give Joe Public a far better return on his recruiting dollars than he gets at the moment (what's the average no of tours:no of reservists finishing RALEIGH ratio?)
  7. My (rose-tinted gasses firmly in place) reading is the opposite. I read it as "Fcuk me! Your reservists are hoofin! Over 30% have been deployed on OpTours - mainly on Land Ops with no relevant training. How about working out what you want them to do and how many of them you need and then we'll really get some benefit from the fckers"
  8. :p
  9. I have only had a rough hack through but for the RNR it contains some useful points, although as ever it's subject to the availability of funding to actually do something about it. I'd say about 30-40 percent was about the RFR rather than he RNR, and improving the services ability to call on that resource pool. In the main I think it's a pretty fair report, certainly not the whitewash that I had anticipated.

    One thing that did concern me slightly was that they recognise the officer/ other ranks distinction with the TA they don't seem to make the same distinction with the RNR. They've got very caught up with the Force Protection role at the expense of much depth around the plethora of niche capabilities that the RNR provides and the regular service doesn't. Some of the recommendations do seem to fall out from that, rather than the bigger picture.

    For the RNR the report appears that they recognise that 24 days is insufficient to retain skills at a credible level, and that it results in a supply chain to OPS as being far too long, particularly for officers. Whilst it's not explicit it comes through very strongly that they see a need for an uplift to somewhere in the 30 days range. One area that they've flagged up was losing part of that 24 days to unit faff and trivia, which is fair as some really kick the ar*e out of the support/ operational balance with respect to resource utilisation.

    They raise concerns about sustainability and recommend that both the RNR and RMR should be somewhat bigger to remain both sustainable and capable of supporting the defence planning assumptions. They also identify the interminable recruitment and New Entry training delays as an issue there. They also highlight that permanent staff has probably fallen below the level required to do the job and express concerns that many permanent staff are in resettlement billets, with a consequent impact on levels of support. All very fair criticisms. There is also a point about COs being reservists rather than regulars and draw out a comparison with the RMR where a regular CO makes a difference to the quality of the unit. I would say that this is a really significant point, but actually making a difference will both cost money and be left at the mercy of the appointers. There is a risk that they continue to see it as a backwater and don't send quality people. Compare with the TA where a TA Regiment command is generally a pretty good job to have. Whilst not top flight, the incumbents are certainly not rejects.

    The RFR points are quite positive, although I think that they're perhaps a bit too optimistic about the attractiveness. They do recognise that they way service leavers are treated is sh!te and a real disincentive to remain involved and they've recommended some low cost potential improvements, the simplest probably being the ID card allowing access to recreational and social facilities. A simple thing, but probably quite far reaching.

    It just needs some political will in the whale Island madhouse to find some cash and implement some of these things. The new Cdre has certainly been sounding a lot more proactive and productive than the last incumbent, but we'll have to wait and see. Some of the changes will be pretty painful for the old and bold who haven't yet switched on to the fact that mobilisation is a reality and someone else can run (and keep solvent) the wardroom/ senior rates bar in the meantime.

Share This Page