Military gap years?

[YourFairViewer]

What does everyone think of military gap years from this week's news? https://theconversation.com/uk-looks-to-military-gap-years-to-boost-recruitment-in-the-face-of-growing-geopolitical-tension-258207?utm_medium=article_clipboard_share&utm_source=theconversation.com

An optional programme for 18-20 year olds seems sensible all around, some of these will head to university and apply for full time military (for engineering there’s a lot of sponsorship available) others may become reservists or go straight into military training, and probably most of all defence allied industries are a large part of our economy now and staff with a bit of military experience is a plus. Without even considering worse reasons like war. A year of growing up before university is a good thing and for low income households an opportunity to save towards the costs

No, because “optional “ is a gateway to “compulsory “.

I don’t think there’s much option if there’s a threat of imminent invasion. You get conscripted, the borders close and emergency powers kick in. Society becomes totally militarized overnight. Wars tend to give privileges according to those who make themselves useful

@1dayatatime

Ok can see what you are driving at now...

There was a good piece in the Guardian a few days back about HM Forces and recruiting/retention but darned if I can find it again..

The article linked below is now dated but still valid to some extent - people need to have confidence they are not going to be deployed simply on a political whim (Blair), and if you want to retain people you really need to make T&Cs, accomodation (both for singlies and married) pay etc comparible or dare I say it better than what's available in the civilian world.

IMHO those running HM Forces have never really understood that..(..."pah, didn't have WiFi in the mess/block in my day......)

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/26/morality-and-reality-the-key-problems-facing-uk-military-recruiters

It's all very well debating any form of conscription but how many of us would hand our sons and daughters over knowing they face being killed or coming back with life changing injuries. When you join the military that's what you are committing yourself to and it might be a flippant decision in periods of peace but suddenly becomes a hell of a lot more serious when trouble breaks out.

Russia can't defend it's own air bases so this idea they pose a threat is almost laughable. They wouldn't get past the North Sea. Having trained with Finish and Norwegian forces I honestly think Russia would get a nasty shock if it tried anything along those borders. So it begs the question where are they going to attack from....they failed in the Ukraine, we have over 300,000 NATO troops along the Russian border in Lithuania and Latvia.

I just don't buy it I honestly don't. I totally understand people wanting a career in the military because it's a good career but only if you are willing to accept the price may or may not require active duty here or abroad. And that's the problem with conscription.... without the willingness to fight it's arbitrary personnel number.

Being prepared for war is okay to me, better that than testing the theory. I feel sorry for ordinary Russians, it’s not like they get choices about Putin, and anyone who disagrees with him is in real trouble.

The Russian state is wicked, poisoning people in this country like they were vermin. I expect that is what Putin thinks, his message is clear.

But isn't it already optional for people to decide to join the military or not?

What's the difference between choosing to join the military voluntarily for a gap year or two and voluntarily choosing to join the military full for 4 years?

I agree but it could only work for limited numbers say 10 k (20k absolute max) per year as the British military is simply not big enough to cope with anymore.

It would need to be voluntary and I would also support the government paying university fees / apprenticeship top up etc afterwards in return for their service.

You would most likely have many more applying than there are spaces which is not necessarily a bad thing.

@1dayatatime

I agree but it could only work for limited numbers say 10 k (20k absolute max)

Even 10k per annum is way too many for the Forces to cope with IMO...(there just isn't manpower spare to baby sit those numbers or the estate to accomodate them..a lot has been sold off.

I think there's a danger of this idea turning into another jamboree for the various agencies such as Crapita and G4S, who would no doubt be roped in, than achieving anything worthwhile for the Forces or the students..

@dubsie

we have over 300,000 NATO troops along the Russian border in Lithuania and Latvia.

Not sure of the numbers but it's the "we" that's important...or does the UK expect to run it's forces at reduced levels and hope to be bailed out by the Norwegians and Finns you mentioned...

BTW and as an aside the air war side if things was once my gig when serving and I wouldn't rule the Russian Long range air force and others out of the game just yet..if the balloon did go up and the Russians were minded to have a pop at the UK they wouldn't have to come through the likes of Scandinavia to do it....in many areas we still do need the ability to stand on our own feet, and that does feed into Force numbers and recruiting.

@notimagain

"Even 10k per annum is way too many for the Forces to cope with IMO...(there just isn't manpower spare to baby sit those numbers or the estate to accomodate them..a lot has been sold off."

You are probably right, given the British Army is only 71k, giving training to 10k volunteers is going to be a push. And that's aside from the infrastructure you mentioned.

But if you reduce it to say 2 or 3 k per year then the question becomes "what's the point?".

On the other hand I did speak to someone quite senior in the MoD who thought 10k was doable. But given their job is to always support the politicians, there is the "of course they would say that" angle.

We I mean NATO, that's why NATO exists. It's a union of force to prevent another world war. I don't believe the UK has 100,000 frontline troops but what we have is more than capable of defending our country. You have to remember invading is a lot harder than defending so while it would seem that our numbers would appear small it's still a very large powerful army.

Yes we can beef up recruitment and spend more and that's probably the right thing to do but conscription is an extreme cure that I don't think would actually work.

The best thing that could happen right now is for Trump and Putin to go away and we can go back to building bridges not walls and wars. What we need is peace not wars.

@dubsie

"I don't believe the UK has 100,000 frontline troops but what we have is more than capable of defending our country."

Size of British Army 71k
Royal Navy 31k
RAF 30k

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/britain-army-munitions-run-out-armed-forces-defence-b1147565.html

So I'm not sure that the UK military is indeed capable of defending the country.

@1dayatatime

On the other hand I did speak to someone quite senior in the MoD who thought 10k was doable. But given their job is to always support the politicians, there is the "of course they would say that" angle.

Yes they would indeed

Upthread You've come with some figures for HM Forces - as you"ve pointed out it's not a lot, so quite how you fit 10K extra bods in for a year long "look see" I don't know....certainly if you don't provide them with proper accomodation and facilities for the year they are not coming back.

...and from what I've heard if HM Forces could provide decent standard facilities and accomodation there would not be the current retention problem.

@1dayatatime Possibly three years!

I think it sounds ok tbh. My eldest does army cadets, his life plan is to become a chef (studying a cooking qualification at college alongside school currently) possibly enlist in RAF as a cook with goal of being a chef rank is apparently mess officer.

It’d be a good try if out option at 18 rather than enlisting for three years off the bat.

Just a heads up that one of the peristent grumbles I've heard from those still "in" is the amount of contracterisation (? Sp? anyhow, Civilianisation, for want of another term) of catering that's gone on across all the messes across at least a couple of the services.

I suppose at least a gap year would make the due diligence a bit easier.

Well that sounds a bit defeatist and arrogant. It used to be the norm to do a shortish stint and it's up to the army to come up with a process that actually is efficient. Your brother don'ts sound up for a forward looking leadership role.

@NannyOgg1341

"NannyOgg1341
My brother is in the army and he really hates the idea of 'national service', he said it's hard enough to train recruits that actively want to be there. "

I don't think your brother needs to worry- there are 712,000 eighteen year olds every year but only 71,000 in the British Army

Even if you changed the role of every British soldier from being a soldier to being a national service instructor then you would have one soldier responsible for 10 national service eighteen year olds.

National service is simply not realistic, having a voluntary two year service for a limited number of 18 years (say 10k pa max) might work.

That's a bit harsh to say the least.

Every service man and service woman has a full time job...they could maybe cope to some degree with being shadowed by one or two individuals for a few days - sort of thing that happens, or used to, with some cadets or sponsored undergraduate schemes..but when I experienced that (from both sides of the fence, so to speak) it was small numbers and a very limited period..

Anything more than that needs properly facilitating.

It's funny people are making a case for conscription while our closest alliance stokes war in the middle east.

Israel sponsored by the United States yet again stokes the coals of war by striking Iran. Completely unnecessary and risks all out war the possibility of a broader conflict drawing in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt.

We can't expect us to support another conflict in the middle east and the idea of some kind conscription when there is a risk of being drawn into something like that is frankly obscene.

It had be great for one of my dcs - very keen cadet but in the fence about signing up full time. Higher level apprenticeships would tempt him too - the army recruitment literature is very hazy about any progression off a level 2/3 apprenticeship. He doesn’t want to go to university but doesn’t want to end up a few years down the line with only a level 3 education. It would be a good option for a lot of school leavers who aren’t sure what they want to do but I can’t see the military being able to cope with significant numbers.

I think what this all highlights is some (and I think that includes a few in Westminster) think the military should really be and behave like another training provider.. it's not (or shouldn't be).

The role of the military used to be encompassed aling the lines of "close with the enemy, engage and kill"...everything has to be secondary to that.

The world has changed though hasn’t it!

close to the enemy, engage & kill can be done by flying a drone or launching a storm shadow missile, Cyber Defence, all that sort of stuff can be done without running around with a gun!

That's the popular view, certainly very common here, but it's a bit flawed...

It's certainly not reflected in a lot of the combat that has gone on and is still ongoing in places like Ukraine, where you still have the infantry slogging it out.

They may well use tech such as small drones as an extra pair or eyes, as an extension of their reach, but you still hear stories coming out of their of combat getting very up close.