Navylark said:
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.