The main MoD website covering the Future Reserves 2020 initiatives (including the inclusive rebranding of the Territorial Army as The Army Reserve)is at https://www.army.mod.uk/territorial/143.aspx.
Bearing in mind that this is a current website, which includes budget projections for spend within the next three/six months, as well as setting out much of the overall future plans for the active reserves, it’s depressing to read yet-again the following inaccurate statement (which hasn’t been corrected for over a year):
[quote=“www.army.mod.uk”]The TA is the largest of all the Reserve Forces, the others being the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR), the Royal Marines Reserve (RMR) and theRoyal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (RAFVR).[/quote] (my bold/italics)
If MoD and the British Army constantly fail to get it right, and can’t communicate the current official position, that the RAF currently has one active deployable volunteer reserve formation, named the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (which is now being branded as ‘RAF Reserves’), how on earth will the rest of the world ever understand?
All deployable elements of the RAFVR were absorbed into the RAuxAF squadrons in April 1997. This was the strategic intention of MoD, the RAF, and the AFB. The RAFVR now consists only of individuals that are associated with training and education, not operations.
Sometimes I really do ask myself: how can the key players get these simple but crucial facts so wrong, constantly?? And then we collectively wonder why young VRT Officers can sometimes come up with bizarre misunderstandings as to their potential future commitments…
Because they probably don’t talk to each other and if they do completely fail to understand what the other is saying and only see it in their terms, ie Army see RAF & RN as ‘Army’; RAF and RN likewise only see it in their ‘likeness’. But this has and always will be the case 99% of the time. As for the MoD mandarins, unless they have a vested interest it will just pass their “desk” without a second thought as they are probably not ‘programmed’ or bothered to question things.
As you know wilf, some of the problem goes back the language used in Reserve Forces Act 1996 which tried to neatly (albeit incorrectly in certain limited cases, like the RAFVR) classify the Reserve Forces in the “Volunteer Reserves” and the “Regular Reserves”
[quote]RFA96 Part 1 Section 2 wrote:
2 Membership of the reserve forces.
(1)The reserve forces shall each consist of officers and men.
(2)The men of the [color=#ff0000]Royal Fleet Reserve, the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve (referred to in this Act as “the ex-regular reserve forces”)[/color] may only be—
(a)men transferred to that force under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or regulations under the Armed Forces Act 1966, as the case may be;
(b)men enlisted or re-engaged in that force.
(3)The men of the [color=#ff0000]Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve, the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (referred to in this Act as “the volunteer reserve forces”)[/color] may only be men enlisted or re-engaged in that force.
(4)In this Act, any reference (however expressed) to a man of any of the reserve forces is a reference to a person of either sex who is a member of that force and is of or below the rate or rank of warrant officer.
[/quote]
The distinction is a logical (if confusing one, in the case of the RAFVR) in that the members of the RNR, RMR, TA & RAuxAF are all volunteers; and the majority of the members of the RFR, Army Reserve & RAFR are all ex-regulars effectively in a “holding pool”.
On the RAF side, it’s the structure of the RAFR which causes the problem, consisting as it does of the:
Reserve of Officers
Reserve of Airmen
RAFVR (Training, UAS, & DTUS branches)
Civil Component (until its current members time out)
Sponsored Reserves
FTRS
It’s also the fact that the RAFVR is a “reserve within a Reserve” which causes the confusion …amongst everyone!
I suppose the question is, is the re-branding of the TA just a marketing exercise to aid its expansion to a strength of 30,000 and to help dispel the - still extant - myth that the TA is a bit “Dads Army” and will only be called out in WW3 (in a Cold War stylee) …or does this - as seems to be the intent - genuinely signify a shift in not only the name and structure but the role of the “Army Reserve(s)”? Will the new Army Reserve field and deploy formed units (like the US National Guard), or will it contine to reinforce the Field Army piecemeal like the TA?
Is this the way the RAF should go? …or does the current public “RAF Reserves” brand do the job (with the RAuxAF and RAFR existing behind the scenes, known - albeit poorly - only within the Air Forces family?
Cheers
BTI
EDIT:
The brown jobs are wrong on another level too (no jokes please):
[quote]www.army.mod.uk wrote:
The TA is the largest of all the Reserve Forces, the others being the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR), the Royal Marines Reserve (RMR) and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (RAFVR)[/quote]
…in that the TA is the largest of the “Volunteer” Reserve Forces, the extant Army Reserve is by far the largest of all the Reserve Forces - but I suppose accuracy is less important than the message, not to mention marginally less confusing…
Yes, of course, and he’s fully-entitled to that fatherly civilian inaccuracy, whereas conversely:
No, I don’t accept that. Neither the Army nor MoD has any excuse for getting this wrong. A major plank of the MoD’s plans is based around rebranding of volunteer reserve foundations in order to increase levels of public understanding of them, and run more-integrated service operations regular/reserve. Suppose there was to be an RAF Reserves or RAuxAF website which made references to the Yeomanry, HSF formations, the old AER/TAVR…the British Army wouldn’t be too happy about the use of outdated/unrevised titles, by a fellow armed service, would they?
Hi BTI…yes indeed, wih the legislation and the practical realities for Naval and Army reserve forces all fitting-together quite sensibly, with fairly logical groupings, sub-divisions, and labels. And then there’s the light-blue part of the world.
And again, you rightly note that the unvoidable Air Force over-use of the word ‘volunteer’ is ideally placed to add to the confusion…
With our well-worn nub of…discussion, still effectively captured in your summary:
[quote=“bti”]
The distinction is a logical (if confusing one, in the case of the RAFVR) in that the members of the RNR, RMR, TA & RAuxAF are all volunteers; and the majority of the members of the RFR, Army Reserve & RAFR are all ex-regulars effectively in a “holding pool”.[/quote]…with my repeated caveat that still, for all practical/legal purposes, all published references to the RAFR exclude anything to do with the RAFVR: and rightly so, since the RAFR is intended to be a regular reserve. If on one hand the claim is that the former ‘Air Force Reserve’ was just simply renamed the RAFR (an action not formally authorised within the key RFA96 legislation, but actioned afterwards), why would it be the case that the same legislation refers throughout to ‘volunteer reserves’ (meaning deployable active reserves) and ‘regular reserves’ (meaning former regulars either liable for recall, or FTRS)…since we’d both agree that the remnant RAFVR is actually neither of these, still, the best place for it to reside is actually mirroring the Naval and Army cadet forces arrangements, and have it as an undeployable part of the volunteer reserves, not unintentionally part of the regular reserve.
[quote=“bti”]On the RAF side, it’s the structure of the RAFR which causes the problem, consisting as it does of the:
Reserve of Officers
Reserve of Airmen
RAFVR (Training, UAS, & DTUS branches)
Civil Component (until its current members time out)
Sponsored Reserves
FTRS[/quote]
A problem, exactly. Because see my above (yes, I know, we’re always 98% agreed on these points, anyway).
Another irony results from the RAF’s rebranding of it’s active volunteer reserves, the RAuxAF, as now being called RAF RESERVES (obviously in the same style/title as RAF AIR CADETS). This again is because Joe Public (allegedly) can’t properly understand either the RAuxAF or ATC labels. And despite the plural “S”, it consists only of one single deployable volunteer reserve force, the RAuxAF.
And as you’ve said, we still have a so-called Royal Air Force Reserve (singular, no “S”), which according to the legislation is intended to be a ‘regular reserve’
[quote=“bti”]It’s also the fact that the RAFVR is a “reserve within a Reserve” which causes the confusion …amongst everyone! :)[/quote]Ah yes, but I remain convinced that this is not intentional: and the evidence to support this perspective is still out there. Consider this (and I’m not sure I originally made this clear)- the classic RAFVR 1936-1947 (also, 1947-1997) was, as a force, one of a number of volunteer reserve formations. The individuals who volunteered to serve in the RAFVR, or were wartime conscripted into it, then went on to serve with a range of different air forces, including (of course) the regular squadrons of the RAF, the auxiliary squadrons of the AAF, the co-founding elements of the RAF Regiment, and other Commonwealth/Allied air forces. Again this (in my opinion) strongly supports the perspective that the original RAFVR was a distinct but identifiable volunteer air force within the previous looser over-arching ‘classic’ Air Force Reserve, which included many different reserves, including (crucially) reserves of the deployable active RAuxAF and the ex-regular reserves.
Since it’s a New Year, and I’m on a roll (apologies to BTI and anyone else that’s bored rigid by this), here’s as comprehensive a list of old-school precedence for the (original) Air Forces of the Crown as I can muster (warning- this is a ‘Director’s Cut’, contains pre-'94 obsolete formations):
Regular Air Forces:
[ul]
[li]Royal Air Force[/li]
[li]Princess Mary’s Royal Air Force Nursing Service[/li]
[li](Woman’s Royal Air Force)[/li]
[/ul]
Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces:
[ul]
[li]Royal Air Force Reserve of Officers[/li]
[li]Royal Air Force Reserve of Airmen[/li]
[li]Princess Mary’s Royal Air Force Nursing Service Reserve[/li]
[li]Woman’s Royal Air Force Reserve of Officers[/li]
[li]Royal Auxiliary Air Force[/li]
[li]Women’s Royal Auxiliary Air Force[/li]
[li]Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve of Officers[/li]
[li]Women’s Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve of Officers[/li]
[li]Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve of Airmen[/li]
[li]Women’s Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve of Airwomen[/li]
[li]Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve[/li]
[li]Woman’s Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve[/li]
[/ul]
…with each of these air forces named as reserve formations being elements within the old over-arching ‘Air Force Reserve’…and a crucial point from an Air Cadets perspective being that back then there was no suggestion whatsoever that the original ‘big’ RAFVR (GD/T/UAS) was any part of a single unified ex-regular reserve…as now, illogically, appears to be the unintended effect since 1997.
Sorry BTI (please, go ahead, feel free to find a flaw in this reasoning…)…are you glad to be back?
[quote=“bti”]Is this the way the RAF should go? …or does the current public “RAF Reserves” brand do the job (with the RAuxAF and RAFR existing behind the scenes, known - albeit poorly - only within the Air Forces family?[/quote] This is an extremely important point to gain confirmation about, and it hurts (yes) that this is so unclear. If we don’t know about it, front-and-centre, who will? What’s the full story about this??
[quote=“bti”]The brown jobs are wrong on another level too (no jokes please)… but I suppose accuracy is less important than the message, not to mention marginally less confusing…[/quote]Yes, good spot, the ‘regular reserve’ of the Army will by definition be huge. And also will this rebranding mean that the Army intends to have two formations, both called ARMY RESERVE? Presumably not…but that then takes us back to the Air Force angle of re-branding/parallel branding. Does RAF RESERVES include the so-called RAFR?
Happy New 2013!
wilf_san
[edit]
(Not that anyone could be criticised for believing (wrongly…) that the RAFVR was, and is, a non-deployable distinct air force within an over-arching air force reserve. That’s as opposed to the official positon, of the RAFVR being just an element within a formed primary reserve that exists for the purpose of providing regular reserves) [/edit]
I think we’re dangerouslu close to agreeing now wilf!
[quote]wilf_san wrote:
…for all practical/legal purposes, all published references to the RAFR exclude anything to do with the RAFVR: and rightly so, since the RAFR is intended to be a regular reserve[/quote]
Ahem(!) …my red :whistle:
[quote]JSP516 The Reserve Forces Act 1996 3rd Edn wrote:
THE RESERVE FORCES
The Reserve Forces now consist of the following Volunteer Reserve Forces and Regular
Reserve Forces:
Volunteer Reserve Forces (essentially civilians who accept an annual training
commitment and a liability to call-out for permanent (that is ‘mobilised’) service).
Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Marines Reserve, Territorial Army and Royal Auxiliary Air
Force.
Regular Reserve Forces (essentially ex-Regular personnel who, on leaving the
Regular Forces, retain a liability to call-out. [color=#ff0000]In some limited and specific
circumstances, volunteer civilians also serve in these Regular Reserve Forces).[/color]
ORGANISATIONAL CHANGES
Generally, officers and other ranks who were serving in the Reserve Forces when the
1996 Act took effect remained in the same Force. However, a number of organisational
changes were made under the Act, namely:
officers of the Retired or Emergency Lists of the Royal Navy and Royal
Marines became members of the Royal Fleet Reserve;
members of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers became members of the
Army Reserve; and
officers and other ranks of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve
became members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force [color=#ff0000]other than members of the
Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training)[/color], the Royal Air Force Volunteer
Reserve (University Air Squadrons) and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve
(Civilian component) [color=#ff0000]all of whom remained members of the Royal Air Force
Reserve.[/color][/quote]
[quote]wilf_san wrote:
…If on one hand the claim is that the former ‘Air Force Reserve’ was just simply renamed the RAFR (an action not formally authorised within the key RFA96 legislation, but actioned afterwards), why would it be the case that the same legislation refers throughout to ‘volunteer reserves’ (meaning deployable active reserves) and ‘regular reserves’ (meaning former regulars either liable for recall, or FTRS)…since we’d both agree that the remnant RAFVR is actually neither of these, still, the best place for it to reside is actually mirroring the Naval and Army cadet forces arrangements, and have it as an undeployable part of the volunteer reserves, not unintentionally part of the regular reserve[/quote]
Agreed! (RAuxAF(T) anyone?) …but it isn’t!
When the RAFVR was raised in 1936, it was raised by Order in Council (i.e. by order of the Monarch - the Government in reality - in Privy Council) …it wasn’t raised by Act of Parliament. Section 6 of The Air Force Consitution Act 1917 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/7-8/51/section/6/enacted only gave legal authority for 3 Air Forces;
the (Royal) Air Force
the Air Force Reserve
the Auxiliary Air Force
…therefore, when the RAF/Air Council/Air Ministry/Government wanted to form a new kind of reserve composed of volunteer individuals - not formed units like the AAF - the new reserve (i.e. the RAFVR) had to be formed as part of an existing reserve for which Parliament had already given approval (i.e. the AFR). Were this not the case, then there would have been (and would be) additional legislation approving the formation of the RAFVR as a seperate Reserve Air Force, like the AAF and AFR.
However, I think (!) we’re both now agreed on all this, because:
…or perhaps not! (I’m confused :? )
For the reasons identified earlier, the original “big” RAFVR was always part of the “classic” AFR, and this is even alluded to in Schedule 8 to RFA96, referenced in your (nice) graphic:
[quote]Schedule 8 t0 RFA96 Section 7(1) wrote:
Her Majesty may [color=#ff0000]continue to maintain [/color]a force known as the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve [color=#ff0000]as a division of the Air Force Reserve[/color][/quote]
…this doesn’t refer to a re-brigading (i.e. that the RAFVR was moved - by RFA96 - into the (R)AFR), it simply refers to a continuation of the original and existing arrangement; i.e.
That (contrary to most publicity the RAF puts out about the RAFVR!!) the RAFVR still exists, and
That is continues to exist as a “division” within the (R)AFR.
Moving on!
Seems a good way to get rid of someone whose face doesn’t fit! …give the impression that your “big idea” is not happening, wait for them to resign in a fit of pique - then do it anyway!!
This is an extremely important point to gain confirmation about, and it hurts (yes) that this is so unclear. If we don’t know about it, front-and-centre, who will? What’s the full story about this??[/quote]
I have always assumed that the new “RAF Reserves” brand incorporates both the RAuxAF and the RAFR, as far as the general public (and increasingly, a less and less aware regular RAF?) is concerned …since FTRS jobs are advertised on the RAF Reserves website in addition to recruiting for the RAuxAF.
I think this does make sense, as does our new “RAF Air Cadets” brand …as the RAuxAF and RAFR exist behind the “RAF Reserves” brand; so too the ATC and CCF(RAF) exist behind “RAF Air Cadets” brand.
As far as the Army is concerned, the “Army Reserve” rebranding is not finalised yet …it could be that the Army ends up with a rebranded “Army Volunteer Reserve” and an “Army Regular Reserve” - which would make a lot of sense - and close the loop started by the language (and intent) started by RFA96.
Some units are still known as that through history and heritage and those that lost it through mergers will probably thank you for it!!![/quote]
I’m also tempted to make references to obsolete regiments, former corps and BAOR…however, that aside (for BTI, or anyone else that’s been following this eternal saga):
[quote="A NEW R.A.F. VOLUNTEER RESERVE, Flight Aug 6, 1936 "]
THE following are the main features of the scheme announced by
Viscount Swinton, Secretary of State for Air, in the House of
Lords last week to provide adequate reserves of pilots for the
expanded Royal Air Force: —
His Majesty the King has approved the creation of a new
reserve, called the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, which will
be open only to men in civil life. The Reserve will embrace pilots
and other classes; the organisation of the pilot’s section is being
proceeded with at once as it is most urgent.
The number of pilots required annually for the Volunteer Reserve
will be 800, as compared with sixty from civil life before the
expansion of the Royal Air Force began. They will receive their
flying training at aerodromes, centres which will be established in
the vicinity of important towns and areas with a large population.
There will he a network of such centres throughout the country,
with several in the neighbourhood of London. Ground instruction
will be provided at town centres at which lectures on the theory of
flight, airmanship, and other essential subjects will be given. The
lectures will be arranged mainly during winter evenings when opportunities
for flying are necessarily restricted. The centres will also
be available for social purposes.
The aerodrome centres will be organised on similar lines to the
existing Civil Flying Schools, at which reserve flying training and
the initial training of pilots for the regular Air Force is at present
earned out. They will be operated by firms under contract with
the Air Ministry. Action is being taken immediately for their
establishment.
Volunteer pilots will be recruited from the neighbourhood of
aerodrome centres, entry being confined to candidates between the
age limits of 18 and 25. The minimum period of service will
be five years.
Previous flying experience is unnecessary but candidates should
have had an education up to the standard of the School Certificate.
They will be entered as airman pilots with opportunities later for
promotion, on merit, to commissioned rank.
The flying instruction will be arranged to allow pilots to train
at week-ends, in the evenings, and at other times convenient to
them. They will be encouraged to spend as much time as possible
in the air in order to gain flying experience of value to the service.
In addition, volunteers will have to attend an annual flying course
of fifteen days’ duration.
The Reserve pilots will receive a retaining fee of £25 a year
and appropriate allowances while under training.
Arrangements are being made for the scheme to come into effective
operation early in 1937, but in view of the administrative
work still to be undertaken applications are not desired from
candidates until after details have been announced regarding the
location of aerodrome centres later during the present year.
The new Reserve will also provide facilities for men who can
arrange to devote a continuous period of eight to ten weeks for
their initial instruction during their first six months of Reserve
service. For this particular section applications are invited immediately
and should be made to the Secretary, Air Ministry, (S.7.C.).
Kingswav, W.C.2. The same age limits will apply and the conditions
of service will be generally similar to those announced above. Present members of the Roval Air Force Reserve who entered
from civil life will be afforded the opportunity of transferring to
the new Reserve.[/quote]
This contemporary reference in ‘Flight’, direct from the original Air Ministry sources, indicates again that the RAFVR was raised as an entirely-seperate force from the then RAFR, and that this was actioned under Royal Prerogative, complimenting the other then-existing reserve air forces such as the Reserve of Air Force Officers, and the Auxiliary Air Force Reserve. Collectively, they represented the then looser ‘Air Force Reserve’, which alongside the Auxiliary Air Force constituted the “Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces” which are referenced in the Royal Warrants associated with the ATC, and in various relevant statutes (eg AFA55, RFA80, RFA96).
Therefore: it can be reasonably argued that the ‘Air Force Reserve’, referred to in the Air Force Constitution Act 1917 and the Auxiliary Air Force and Air Force Reserve Act of 1924 as a parallel to the ‘Auxiliary Air Force’, really does appear from the available evidence to have been in practice an over-arching collective formation for a range of distinct reserve air forces, each with (by definition) their own seperate missions, entry qualifications, responsibilities and regulations (where appropriate). Good examples of other reserve air forces that were raised under this arrangement (apparently without any other enabling legislation) include the RAF Special Reserve, the RAF Civilian Wireless Reserve, and (crucially) both the actual RAF Reserve itself (in the sense of the holding pool for Airmen discharged from regular service, the main regular reserve) and the Reserve of Air Force Officers (in respect of the holding for Officers discharged from regular, short and auxiliary service).
The other supporting evidence that the original ‘umbrella’ Air Force Reserve was entirely-seperate from the RAFVR, in addition to it’s original Royal constitution in 1936, was highlit by the subsequent formal re-constitution of the VR in 1947 following the strategic Air Reserves Conference. This was necessary in order to return the RAFVR to it’s (then) original 1936-1939 role as a distinct reserve air force of individual volunteers (both deployable and training), as opposed to being overwhelmingly a force of wartime conscripts during WW2. This appears to have been part of the reasoning behind RAF National Service Officers and conscripted airmen 1947-1963 being treated as short-service entrants to the regular RAF and only administered by the RAFVR, with the intention that a significant proportion of these individuals would (on completion of their National Service Obligation) ideally volunteer to join one of the ‘Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces of the Crown’. This was another good reason to maintain clear seperation between the distinct air forces that existed within the overall ‘Air Force Reserve’.
I genuinely cannot find any evidence for (nor is there logic behind) all of the individual Reserve Air Forces being subordinate elements/divisions or branches of the (ex-regular) RAF Reserve. For example, it would have been impossible for the former Reserve of Air Force Officers to have been a direct part of the former (say 1936-1965) RAFR, as one of the strategic intentions of the changes to the active reserve (under RFA96) was for it to then become a reserve containing both Officers and Airmen/Airwomen.
The bottom line: it is a defendable position to say that the RAFVR is an unintentionally-included division of what is now called the RAFR, which is really intended to be a reserve of ex-regular individuals.
)
