I heard recently from the RAF that their average time from application to beginning training is 10 months.
It’s the epitome of inefficiency.
1 Like
I have always taken the “delay” in the process as a test of the candidate - if they are determined to join up they’ll deal with the process* while those who apply “on a whim” flake out after waiting and getting settled in a “temporary” job that turns out far more comfortable for them
*sounds familiar to CFAVs who are determined to make things work despite HQACs best efforts in applying more admin
They did.
Until the reports from BRIXMIS and other agencies are released, if ever, we will truly not know.
Crapita is involved, so 10 months is good going.
1 Like
There are a couple of books regarding the Auxiliaries, many passed away having never told their story, the same as those at Bletchley, SOE etc. The Auxiliaries had a couple of task, one was to ‘execute’ those seen as collaborators in the event of invasion and the other was Chief Constables who were aware of their existence.
Many ended up in the SAS and other specialist units as the war progressed beyond mid 1943.
1 Like
This is a false economy & not true anymore. Agreed that if you go too quick then the no hopes & whim start making it wasted effort but that only really happens if you have a joining process quicker than a month.
However delays itself should not be the hoop to jump through - that’s why you have a selection process. If you have long delays then you loose the middle hump if your quality bell curve - you keep only the fanatical & fantasists who don’t know when to quit or redirect their resources to more available roles.
If you don’t value people in the application process it shows you won’t value them once employed.
2 Likes
I’ll raise you the interview I had on Monday which was 8 months after applications closed (admittedly with two rounds of online tests in between). I’ve got to wait another five months until June to find out the outcome
1 Like
I don’t disagree - and recognise that if the process is too long then yes you will likely lose 50% of the good candidates. I am simply saying it if is too quick then it becomes too “easy” applying for the Armed Forces shouldn’t be as easy as signing up to work at McDs or Tesco
in every other role, a notice period of 1-3 months is typical and so even if double that at 6 months is seen as the “average” for joining up that might be considered a suitable test into their commitment levels. When it is past 9 months and longer than a year though it is far too long and clearly down to inefficiencies in the system rather than simply the process in place
1 Like
In a prolonged transition to war, maybe Op Interflex provides a blueprint for training. It leaves out a lot of the stuff that takes time, such as days on a drill square, and concentrates on combat training and skills.
1 Like
Doesn’t it say something that even The Guardian is suggesting adopting a more “pre-war” stance might be a good idea?
3 Likes
I don’t believe that he was suggesting conscription -
Britain must train citizen army, military chief warns
I was intrigued by the results of yesterdays YouGov Daily Question which asked -
- If a new world war broke out, which of the following would you do?
- If a new world war broke out and the UK was under imminent threat of invasion, which of the following would you do?
- In the event that a new world was broke out and compulsory conscription were introduced, fo you think this should or should not include women?
The results were as follows
The answers I selected are in bold - what would everyone else do?
1 Like
There was a piece on this week’s BFBS SitRep podcast about how ‘citizen army’ does not mean conscription. A good point is made about how small professional forces are for peacetime deterrence and need to be replaced by citizen armies in total wars (either through mass volunteering or conscription: the YouGov poll appears to rule the former out, although the quantity of N/As makes me wonder about the target audience).
I like your answers. Mine would be the same (although, as a reservist, I’ve already volunteered).
1 Like
Yes, I had similar thoughts on the N/A’s - the results are supposedly weighted to be representative of the GB population. There were 3043 respondents.
The breakdown of the N/A’s (Q1) by age shows the issue with 17% of 18-24 beleiving that they are not eligible.
Add that to the 36% who would refuse a call up and over half of that age bracket wouldn’t/couldn’t.
This does drop to 2/5 if the UK is under direct threat.
2 Likes
I’ve been thinking about this a bit recently. And also the UKr policy of not calling up those under 27.
I would volunteer especially if it made it so my ‘military age’ children didn’t have to. I’d imagine I’d be put in a training role, or something related to my civvie job. Or maybe guarding a not that strategic target somewhere. I don’t think I’d be much use as infantry at my stage in life.
(As an aside I did find it quite curious that before I joined some VR(T) officers were quite vocal about how they might get called up if the worst happened. Nothing I have seen since has dispelled my impression that aside from admin there really wasn’t much they could do and perhaps not even that. These types were certainly not the skillies, FCIs or RMQ holders one could see helping the rapid expansion of UK forces).
1 Like
One of the reasons why I’ve begun an application now is because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Make no mistake that I think we’re a long way off having to fight in an all-out war. But things are moving in that way and I want to ensure that, if things do get there, I’m in a role I want to be in rather than being forced to be infantry cannon fodder.
4 Likes
I’ve not heard much from them for a while, but has anyone else been fairly impressed with what NAFO have churned out since 2022?
Some of that imagery is hilarious but, yes, well impressed with NAFO’s mission to tie up Russia’s bot farms debating with dogs.
part of Russia’s plan all along?
Watching the Ukrainian push into Kursk Oblast with interest - certainly sets the cat amongst the pigeons.
Wondering what the strategic objective is, the NPP perhaps?
On another group folks are saying it’s a hedge against any attempt by Moscow to push for a ‘peace’ deal with forces in place.
Creates ‘you leave our land and we’ll leave yours’ leverage.
Certainly changes the nature of the conflict somewhat.
2 Likes