Need information...

[demolition_dot]

Hi all, I was hoping that some of you might be able to help me. I am currently an officer cadet studying at BRNC and shall be doing a presentation on 'Do we need a Royal Naval Reserve?' in about three weeks time. The problem is I'm having a lot of difficulty finding out what exactly the Reserves do at the moment. What operations has anyone taken part in recently or what roles have they been trained in? Do different units ever combine together or is it a team for a particular unit would be sent each time? Any idea of future roles? Anything from around 2003 would be fantastic, cheers!

 

[Navylark]

Wow! You are asking a question that has a resounding yes and no depending on who you talk to! There are quite a few ex RNR OCs at BRNC it would be good to track them down for a start. Unlike the TA the RNR is very small (about 1800 on the trained strength) and consequently when the RNR gets involved with the RN or purple operations the profile is very low because we work side by side with the full time colleagues mostly.

The role of the RNR has been changing at differing paces over the past ten years since the MSFs were taken away after establishing there was no real need for them. It has taken the RN a long while to accept that they need to establish a role for the RNR and to embrace it as part of the RN or it will simply be taken away. This would leave the RN as a poor relative to the Army and RAF who manage their Reserves/Auxiliaries/Part timers much better. Thus the current thinking is that the RNR can fulfill specialist roles which:

1) the RN doesn't have e.g. Maritime Trade Ops (keeping an eye on Merchants)

2) the RN doesn't need all the time but only in times of "surge" (which does seem to be all the time at the moment) e.g. extra bodies to guard ships, guys in green with SA80s - TA infantry style. or medics, intelligence specialists.

The issue is that the roles and requirements still haven't been fully established, but things are moving on at a pace.

You could write a massive essay in answer to your question which is presumably what you have got to do. It might be difficult in this arena to give you details of Operations because of OPSEC so you may only get a very basic set of answers to your question. Trawl through the RN website and look at the RNR unit pages, each one of them. This will answer some of your questions.

A few things to remember are:

1) the RNR is v. cost effective in real terms, we cost the equivalent of £7,700 per head to keep each year as compared to the £50K for a full timer. (See National Audit Office report 2005)

2) the RNR brings different skills and especially a different mind set to the job when called in. To quote "the RNR often thinks more out of the box than the RN" - simply because otherwise, Mon-Fri we have different jobs from which we bring skills and experiences.

3) the shortfall in numbers in the RN simply means there is a manpower shortage which can be very cheaply overcome by involving the RNR.

4) Part timers bring an energy and enthusiasm because we very much want to be doing what we are doing and haven't become perhaps jaded by repetition. The full timers are always amazed at how much time we are prepared to give eg weekends etc and it is difficulty to explain why we want to do it. When you eventually go out side - you'll realise!!!

Bottom line is if you get rid of the RNR the money saved will not be transferred back into the RN to augment numbers, resources or anything else, it will be swallowed up so the RN would have a net loss. This is the key driver at the moment.

Hope you will conclude the RN does need us!

 

[Navylark]

Wow! You are asking a question that has a resounding yes and no depending on who you talk to! There are quite a few ex RNR OCs at BRNC it would be good to track them down for a start. Unlike the TA the RNR is very small (about 1800 on the trained strength) and consequently when the RNR gets involved with the RN or purple operations the profile is very low because we work side by side with the full time colleagues mostly.

The role of the RNR has been changing at differing paces over the past ten years since the MSFs were taken away after establishing there was no real need for them. It has taken the RN a long while to accept that they need to establish a role for the RNR and to embrace it as part of the RN or it will simply be taken away. This would leave the RN as a poor relative to the Army and RAF who manage their Reserves/Auxiliaries/Part timers much better. Thus the current thinking is that the RNR can fulfill specialist roles which:

1) the RN doesn't have e.g. Maritime Trade Ops (keeping an eye on Merchants)

2) the RN doesn't need all the time but only in times of "surge" (which does seem to be all the time at the moment) e.g. extra bodies to guard ships, guys in green with SA80s - TA infantry style. or medics, intelligence specialists.

The issue is that the roles and requirements still haven't been fully established, but things are moving on at a pace.

You could write a massive essay in answer to your question which is presumably what you have got to do. It might be difficult in this arena to give you details of Operations because of OPSEC so you may only get a very basic set of answers to your question. Trawl through the RN website and look at the RNR unit pages, each one of them. This will answer some of your questions.

A few things to remember are:

1) the RNR is v. cost effective in real terms, we cost the equivalent of £7,700 per head to keep each year as compared to the £50K for a full timer. (See National Audit Office report 2005)

2) the RNR brings different skills and especially a different mind set to the job when called in. To quote "the RNR often thinks more out of the box than the RN" - simply because otherwise, Mon-Fri we have different jobs from which we bring skills and experiences.

3) the shortfall in numbers in the RN simply means there is a manpower shortage which can be very cheaply overcome by involving the RNR.

4) Part timers bring an energy and enthusiasm because we very much want to be doing what we are doing and haven't become perhaps jaded by repetition. The full timers are always amazed at how much time we are prepared to give eg weekends etc and it is difficulty to explain why we want to do it. When you eventually go out side - you'll realise!!!

Bottom line is if you get rid of the RNR the money saved will not be transferred back into the RN to augment numbers, resources or anything else, it will be swallowed up so the RN would have a net loss. This is the key driver at the moment.

Hope you will conclude the RN does need us!

 

[Jim30]

Also the RNR has real world skills often in demand that RN lack. For instance I can think of numerous examples where RNR personnel have been able to do their real job effectively with the RN and saved a lot of money into the bargain - thinking ship chartering here.

 

[sulzer]

Historically the RNR/RNVR was tied up with the British Mercantile Fleet eg trawlers for escorts etc. Consider the effect of the run down of the British Mercantile fleet and the impact of the container ships upon future naval operations..

 

[Deckhead_Inspector]

Historically the RNR/RNVR was tied up with the British Mercantile Fleet eg trawlers for escorts etc. Consider the effect of the run down of the British Mercantile fleet and the impact of the container ships upon future naval operations..

Eh? come again? The RNR was formed entirely from men serving in the Mechant Navy before the merging with the RNVR. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Seadog]

I agree with Deckhead Inspector In the old days (before my time) the RNR were professional seafarers (Officers wore interlaced wavy rings), The RNVR were landsmen, some of whom may have sailed at the weekend (I mean no disrespect). Officers wore wavy rings like the modern RNR (SCC).

 

[Maxi_77]

I agree with Deckhead Inspector In the old days (before my time) the RNR were professional seafarers (Officers wore interlaced wavy rings), The RNVR were landsmen, some of whom may have sailed at the weekend (I mean no disrespect). Officers wore wavy rings like the modern RNR (SCC).

The merging of the old RNR with the RNVR happened just after the war so was really a very long time ago. For many years rhe RNR operated the 10th Minesweeping/contermeasures Squadron and as such had a substantial operationally capable membership, to the extent that MS10 was in the 60s the top minesweeping squadron in NATO, and that was done not with silly excercises but with real WW2 German mines which still littered the North Sea and Baltic. Landsmen they may have been but with bloody wet feet.

 

[froggit]

I think If you look you will find mobilised RNR in ALL current live ops, From Afganistan (The most landlocked Muppet) to the gulf. Also you will find most training establishments will have at least 1 FTRS person.
During Gulf 2 The MW tasking authority was 3/4 RNR,
We may not be prominent but we are thereand we are "part of the team"

 

[Uncle_Albert]

The percentage of mobilised reservists as a proportion of matelots on active is 16%, according to the MTO weekend just gone. Exactly what that means I don't know, but it's clear that there are an awful lot of reservists out there somewhere.

 

[trehorn2]

A few things to remember are:

1) the RNR is v. cost effective in real terms, we cost the equivalent of £7,700 per head to keep each year as compared to the £50K for a full timer. (See National Audit Office report 2005)

Unfortunately i would have to disagree with the above comment.

The RNR are more cost effective than the RN because;

a) We arent as intensely trained as them.
b) We arent paid full time, obviously because we arent there full time.
c) We don't get a pension.

The RNR may be cheaper per person than the RN but that is only until the day that they have to call us up. When you add the pre-deployment training, compensation to employers, the cost of making up peoples pay to ensure that they don't lose money while mobilised.

For example, to ensure that i didn't suffer financially if mobilised the RN would have to pay me another £22,000.00 p/a on top of my equivilant RN salary. The would have to compensate my employer to the tune of approx £5,000.00 to find a temporary replacement (i'm quite cheap compared with the current market value). Not to mention and additional costs associated with finding and training my replacement.

All this before any pre-deployment training, additional kit, travel, etc. (Which you could argue the RN May require also)

I also realise that mobilisation is usually six months, therefore the above could be halved.

Just for the record I do believe that the RNR has a very real role to play within the RN.

 

[buster]

The essential phrase in Navylark's post is;
"to keep"
i.e. a practical , useable reserve. available when needed. I also disagree with
"We arent as intensely trained as them" sic
I have only once been on an RNR only course. It was harder going than all the other mixed courses I have been on.