Specialist Pay Cuts

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by trelawney126, May 26, 2011.

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. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    If you read the article correctly the SP isn't being cut, what is happening is that the Army has a restricted amount of money for pay (including SP) it's looked at how that is being spent and has (guesswork) analysed that a lot of SP is spent on para trained individuals who don't jump very often if at all...certainly operationally and its decided to reduce the number of people who are fully parachute trained to lower its overheads.

    Sort of makes sense, will insense the maroon machine and the echelons the Army hierarchy that came from the Parachute Rgt, and will no doubt be soon followed by claims that it will have a serious effect on recruitment, and hence standards and recruitment of SFSG/SF.

    Look at the Marines, we have numbers of parachute trained individuals cast about the Corps. Some specialist units higher numbers the average unit doesn't and doesn't need to as we've not conducted mass jumps for so long. Doesn't seem to affect them very much....

    At real risk perhaps is the ethos and culture of the Regiment and that level of blind obedience under stress that para training is meant to instill. I can see why these would get annoyed over that, plus you will create a Regt of "semi-hats", oh the banter...
  2. This thread is being smashed about on Arrse right now.

    Frankly, it's long overdue. 16AA is filled with 'para billets' from the supporting arms that can be removed. The news report is contradictory in places but seems to indicate that Para Reg will continue to Para train their guys and they will keep the pay. It'll be the non-Para Reg guys who won't then get on a jumps nor receive the pay. It won't actually save anywhere near as much as the report suggests if 2 Battalions worth of blokes are still getting the pay.
  3. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I agree - but as you say just look at the heat & light being generated on ARRSE - when it's pretty indefensible in this climate to pay someone for something they've not fully done since Suez!

    Fine to keep the pay/training for the elements that use it, but don't use it - lose it.
  4. Agreed.

    It simply cannot be justified. I left a few comments on that thread but haven't returned for a few hours as I know there's probably some big argument going on.
  5. Do Submariners, Aircrew etc, who are serving but not in their specialist roles still qualify for their specialist pay?
  6. Pull pin - throw granade:-

    When was the last time the PARA's used their parachuting skills in anger? It appears to me that we are paying them for a skill that they never use. Why in honesty are they being paid extra money for a skill which is supposedly what they do (it's in the name - it does what it says on the tin etc)? Is parachute pay just a way of keeping hold of them? If so do we really need them all (SDSR).

  7. Subsunk

    Subsunk Badgeman Book Reviewer

    It is pretty misguided to be hollowing out the front line like this while hosing huge amounts of money at BAE for their overpriced, substandard kit. Still, the divisive nature of the para pay cut is the work of an evil genius in MOD. Looks to me that the aim is to have the various capbadges bickering over millions, while MOD continues to spaff away billions to their big business mates.
  8. ALL types of SP are being reviewed, not just Parachute Pay. This is not new news; the 2011 SP review was announced sometime late last year (in a DIB), and at the same time that revisions to the SP "Reserve Band" arrangements were announced.
  9. Individuals' basic 'Pay Spines' may vary according to their specialist qualifications but the Reserve Band system for Specialist Pay (SP) became operational with the introduction of JPA (Joint Pay Accounting).

    Reserve Band is currently paid for the first 6 years away from an SP post at 100% of the full rate for the first 3 years; 75% of the full rate during the fourth year; 50% of the full rate during the fifth year; and 25% of the full rate during the sixth year. Payment then ceases altogether. This means, for example, that personnel drafted to a non-SP instructional billet will not be penalised and still retain their full rate of SP for up to three years before returning to an SP-qualified job again.

    See the tables and appendices at the back of the 2011 Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report for more detail.
  10. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    This isn't what you think it is - it's not part of the wider review of SP, it's the Army looking inwards and making some sensible decisions.
  11. Ageing_Gracefully

    Ageing_Gracefully War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    I take your point re Suez but please remind me - when was the last time we fired Trident in anger?
    Last edited: May 26, 2011
  12. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    For submariners in general, every deployment is operational and just because they're not lobbing ICBMs about doesn't mean they're not doing something else worthy - boats have a multitude of capabilities and purposes......

    But, getting back to the Paras. I generally agree with your posts on ARRSE, and for a saving of so little there is likely to be a big effect if it is imposed across all Para Bns but reading that report makes me thinks its the wider support elements of 16AAX and maybe thats where they can take some element of risk.

    Looking at it dispassionately its about capability vs risk vs money - if we had plenty of the latter the former wouldn't be an issue. But since we don't they are scrutinised and if we can generate some money even a small amount for another area by making a saving then I guess thats what they need to do.

    On the wider SP review it will be interesting to see what comes out of the review and if that will be influenced by any Afghanistan exit decisions. SP is all about Recruiment and Retention, with a declining Military post-SDSR, I wonder if the powers that be will decide that post HERRICK SP could be a ripe target - lunacy to make any changes now.
  13. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    The keyword is deterrent, haven't a nuclear war since we had it have we. There have been several normal wars since Suez which the paras have not been used sans umbrella.
  14. NG - this is, or will be, no longer true. As of May 12, the Reserve Band "window" is changed to 3 years; 2 years at 100%, 1 year at 50% and then zero. So someone doing a job "out of spec" starts to take a financial hit after 2 years - it will be interesting, to say the least!
  15. Ageing_Gracefully

    Ageing_Gracefully War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    This a a naval site so I accept that your arguments are going to be from a different angle. However, if every submarine patrol is classed as operational and that nuclear is a deterrent please do not think of them as being the only deterrent. There may have been nuclear peace for the past 6+ decades, but in between there have been huge need for other forces which have been used in a deterrent role.

    The fact that the British Army capability is recognised worldwide is a major deterrent in its own right. Part of that is the Parachute Regiment and supporting arms. Remove that, and this is a 'death by a thousand cuts', before long there will be cries to get rid of parachute capability altogether - followed by other specialities which are no longer seen as part of the necessary make-up of the British Armed forces. Indeed, why keep a nuclear deterrent if it can only be used if agreed by the President of the United States? Do we only carry them on their behalf.

    My point is that we have to be extremely capable about what we get rid of. Once the first step is gone, the bean-counters will move on to the next. They are inexhaustible and will always look to cut, cut, cut. Give in and all is lost.

    Apart from that, everything is hunky-dory :)
  16. Thanks for the update.
  17. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    One could argue that the Submarine Service (both SSN and SSBN) is continually at the highest state of readiness when on patrol and has been since the start of the cold war. My understanding is that it is an independent nuclear deterrent and no other countries permission is required to launch (it would be unlikely that we would launch without US agreement but in real terms we could).

    The readiness state cannot be applied to the Para's in their true role as they haven't been used in that, as been said, since Suez. I don't know what the re qual need for Para's is but my understanding is that very few practice/training jumps are now carried out.
  18. Ageing_Gracefully

    Ageing_Gracefully War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The one thing that everyone will have to be very careful about - and for this I apologise for my earlier post - is that we don't end up in an inter-Service bun fight. Instead we should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder facing down the politicians. It is after all these people who have sent the armed forces to various places recently without adequately funding MoD to undertake the tasks. MoD may well say say it will cost X to run the Services - but if we are sent off to expend ammunition and kit in other countries then it will cost Y+ and the government who asked for the forces to go and do rough stuff should fork out the wonga to allow this to happen. To turn round and say it is costing lots to have the army in Afghanistan so we will pare away at the Navy & RAF is totally wrong, IMO. A tad naive maybe, but of the pollies don't want to pay for war, don't go to war.

    I also fully appreciate that once troops are moved out of AFG then the army is going to have huge cuts applied, removing some capability which will never be replaced. Again, IMO, this will be a false economy in the long run.
  19. Subsunk

    Subsunk Badgeman Book Reviewer

    Well, yes, but the sum total of all these individual sensible decisions will leave us with hollowed-out shells of fighting services. I submit that it's easy for us to look at another service and applaud cuts like this. However, when we face similar losses ourselves our monocles always fall out in horror at the prospect. This is a triservice disease.

    Not trying to be contentious but all 3 services are being driven into making pretty asinine miniscule savings which destroy morale. At the same time all 3 services are committed to spaffing their budgets at ropy procurement projects.

Share This Page