RNR to go by 2010

Discussion in 'Royal Naval Reserve (RNR)' started by itsamuppet, Nov 15, 2007.

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. So the duty buzz at the moment around the fleet is that the RN are investigating the cost effectivness of the RNR. This will be done over 2008/2009 finacial year and if we are found not to be cost effective then its a year to disband.

    That would explain why we have Lt Cdrs as QM.
  2. Hmmm, I can't see that happening. I can see a reduction in posts above SO2 to zero, a removal of the Cdre slot and a general downgrading of the RNR to a few small roles, with the units turned into naval regional HQs though.
  3. Some of the rumours you guys start on here are laughable, bearing in mind we have committments for the next 5 years, where do you get these buzzes from.............. too much port methinks...............everyone else please disregard these last transmissions.

  4. rumours are from reputable sources, close to the heart of CMR.

    Commitments change, 5 years ago the RNR's was a lot different to today. but if we aren't value for money then you can see where savings could be made. And lets face it compared to the TA and RMR our deployment % is way down, and its the same people time and again.

    If we want to survive then we need to stop supporting the RN by giving them lots of different services some, of which are only useful occasionally, but provide them with a total service they can't operate without.

    Otherwise the next time you see a STUFT ship in a foreign port it could have the DGS guarding it, Stobart lorries supplying it and 118 118 operating the comms.
  5. haha. Do you know who you're telling that this comes from sources close to CMR?

    All things change and the RNR will keep changing. Of course the forces will always look at the cost efficiency of the reserves, because the whole point of reserves is to be a cheap way to maintain additional capabilities.

    The RNR doesn't decide what it 'gives the RN'. The RN defines what it wants the RNR to deliver. This is reviewed regularly. Current operations are introducting a whole set of different requirements which may well lead to more generalist training or a shift in the specialisations required, but this sort of thing is nothing new.

    Of course the deployed % is below that of the TA and RMR - we're engaged in land-based operations and they have the skillsets which are required in the highest volumes. Or are you suggesting that the RNR should train as soldiers? - oh hang on, that's what the TA is for!

    When was the last time ships were taken up from trade? Isn't this what the old focus of the RNR was?

    I'm with MasterChief on this one.
  6. MC - I think you need to have a word with CMR the next time you're making the brews or see him in the lavvy. I'm not sure he's aware of this.
  7. OMG now I have this really bad image in my head of MC and CMR in the loo!

  8. This matter was raised (under Chatham House Rules) with the FSL on HMS Bulwark on Monday evening. My understanding of his reply (GR should be able to clarify as she was with me) is that he talked of fully integrating the RNR into the RN (in much the same way the other reserves are being integrated) so that phasing out the RNR would be a logical step forward following integration.
  9. We provide what is asked for, not what we think they should want.
  10. What the RN want are deployable personnel, not people in branches that are only required once in a blue moon.

    I know Masterchief is right there with CMR, thats why he has the time to constantly read these forums (joke)

    Perhaps if it isn't Ops spec he could give us a breakdown of what % of personnel from each branch have been deployed over the last 4 years.

    I know if I was in charge I would be looking at getting rid of or merging any that didn't seem to be utilised enough into those that are used all the time.
  11. Surely the whole point of Chatham House rules is that the speaker can feel free to discuss contentious issues, and it won't be attributed. If everytime someone tells you something he then finds it plastered all over Rum Ration don't be surprised if they stop telling you anything interesting!
  12. Perhaps you'd like to share with us which branches you believe that the RN does not have a sustained and ongoing requirement for.

    It would be perhaps more meaningful to ask where the RNR has failed to meet the requirements of the RN, that would give an indication of the shortfall of people that we're currently experiencing. However that information would be sensitive since it would indicate where in the orbat the RN has weaknesses.

    Personally if I were in charge I'd be looking at fulfilling the requirements placed on the RNR by CINC. Lets face it, CMR works for CINCFLEET, he now even works in the same building, one floor up and about fifty yards away.

    Given that CINC actually pays the bills, and has been undergoing a Lean Six Sigma based transformation programme for just over a year then the concept of CMRs delivery of Operational Capability is a perfectly valid area for consideration. If it wasn't being reviewed then I'd question the legitimacy of the Lean process. (OK I question the validity anyway, but that's more for reasons of effectiveness than specifics.)

    If there are branches delivering capability that CINC has no use for, then he's entirely at liberty to cease funding them. It is his train set after all, not CMRs.
  13. Bugger! :oops:
  14. Methinks you miss the point here. The CMR flunkies use this forum as a sounding board to judge what the reaction of sane people might be to their insane rantings. When told its CHR by CMR types its because whatever youve been told is expected to be plastered everywhere.

    If you really think the RNR is on a downward slope try phoning MARCRT and asking what their commitment board looks like. The trouble is we have more requirement than volunteers as it seems too many take Cincfleets shilling and are not prepared to get their skin tanned
  15. There is only one Chatham House Rule.


    I have no doubt that you know that the rule is that speakers are unattributable, which is to allow them to be candid in their response without being reported by attendees at the event.

    I'm somewhat surprised that you have chosen not to adhere to the rule.

    I'm unclear as to whether the event on Bulwark was organised by Chatham House, or whether discretion was requested by the organisers. Perhaps you could clarify whose trust you have breached.
  16. Given the current recruitment and retention situation, they only need to wait to 2010 till nearly all of the RNR will have left anyway! :lol:
  17. Will this finally get rid of the Wannabees and Uncle Alberts from this site then. If so then hip hip hooray.
  18. Whilst I can understand CHR and all that, I am not really understanding that in this day and age of the internet and open source information, if a matter is not to be discussed outside the room in which is was first mentioned, why someone would be so indiscrete as to mention it in the first place. Human nature being what it is and all that. Presumeably there were people in the audience like Steve who have no obligation to keep schtum about anything that they have heard?

    CMR has been talking for at least a year about trying to make the RNR and RN more integrated. Could you all be getting your knickers in a twist and actually what was said that something along those lines?
  19. I have never been to Chatham or know of the rule, possibly it follows the lower deck of what goes on tour stays on tour. And as I have spent all of my life in or around the Navy I am quite suprised.

    I was also not on the Bulwark or at any time privvy to any conversation that took place.

    I am simply using this forum as a sounding board to see if the rumour I heard and then could or would not be confirmed utilising RNR proper channels, was in fact true.

    Had my command structure when asked this delicate question (in confidence) not baulked at the question and given me a resounding no then I would not be on here.

    As it was a look of suprise that someone should know this that doesn't partake in wardroom high jinxes, and a embarresed "I'll get back to you" only leaves me with one thought, that there is some truth in it.

    Please do not get me wrong, I believe that a cull of personnel is required, who for no other reason than they don't fancy a deployment, have yet to give anything back to the service that pays them.

    But we need to give the Navy what it wants to survive, and with the limited manpower we have maybe we need to look at the branches that do not offer the same amount of deployability and retrain them to the branches that do i.e AWFP. Either that or everyone does their time from new entry to LH in AWFP and then changes to branch at that point, works for MW.
  20. Chatham House is the home of the Royal Institute for International Affairs. As you can imagine, there are some very intense and controversial discussions go on in this institute. To help them have "full & frank discussions", they evolved the "Chatham House Rule" which means that what is said at a gathering cannot get attributed to named individuals. You are not quite correct in your "what goes on tour stays on tour".

    I am very surprised that anyone would attribute any information under Chatham House Rule to a named individual. It defeats the whole purpose of the original frank exchange.

    Edited to add linky
    Chatham House Rule

Share This Page