http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24678509-601,00.html

THE role of Australian Defence Force reservists should be greatly expanded, to include not only clerks in the jungles of the Pacific, but Qantas pilots in the air force and fishermen in the navy during the down season.

The Ready Reserve axed by the Howard government should be resurrected to boost capability at a time when the ADF is struggling to attract skilled personnel, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has recommended.

Over the past decade both the US and Britain had made better use of their part-time military than Australia to sustain operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the report from the government-funded ASPI.

Similar potential was available for the ADF but a more flexible working arrangement with employers was required along with a pay review, said report authors Andrew Davies and Hugh Smith.

Significantly, the Royal Australian Air Force had started discussions with Qantas about closer co-operation, Mr Davies told The Australian.

"The air force loses pilots to Qantas relatively frequently and what they're trying to do is turn that into a managed process," he said. "The quid pro quo might be that some of the Qantas people might come back and fly for the air force especially when the air force is flying aircraft that are essentially airliners."

Mr Davies was referring to new air-to-air refuellers and surveillance aircraft ordered by the RAAF.

In the US reservists fly the most advanced fast jets including the latest F-22 Raptor fighter.

Current ADF Reserve strength is 25,408, most of whom (17,171) serve in the army, but better use could be made of the part-timers for overseas deployments, Mr Davies said.

One option was to resurrect the Hawke-Keating era Ready Reserve which operated from 1991-1996 before it was scrapped by John Howard.

The program was worth reviving because at its core was a 12-month full-time training requirement designed to ensure the soldiers were more usable.

Faced with heavier demand on their military personnel both the British and Americans had gone further in their use of part-time forces than Australia.

"In part because they've been much more stretched than us with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan," Mr Davies said.

To ensure the Reserves remained an attractive career option, the Rudd Government needed to close the gap in pay and conditions for full and part-time servicemen that would allow a "seamless" transfer between the reserve and regular ranks.

The British experience offered a new approach for use of Australia's part-time military, including the deployment of soldiers as light infantry on regional peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.

The ADF is moving in that direction. Most of the Australian troops serving with the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands are now reservists.

Other initiatives to make better use of part-time military include the establishment of a national ADF data base with up-to date records of civilians and their skills, ASPI recommended.

The hard-pressed navy, which has seen many of its highly trained personnel take better paid jobs in the private sector, is now working with the South Australian fishing industry to utilise skilled personnel during their seasonal downtime.

"Not all civilian skills are in operationally high demand, but there are some specialised skills that can sometimes make valuable contributions to operations," said ASPI. These could typically include IT, language and psychology skills.

I don't agree with national service. And that is certainly not because I am anti-defence. As a former servicewoman, I wouldn't want to have people at my back who don't want to be there. It is not safe, and doesn't make for a happy workplace.

Yes to National Service.

If you conscientiously object to the military then the option should be to do do civil defence such as the SES / RFS / Charitywork etc.

Swagman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 2:03pm:


Absolutely No to NS. Would achieve nothing.

Modern armed forces are professional fighting units and shouldn't have to deal with a bunch of amateurs who don't want to be there and are there only because we can't think of anything else to do with them.

The whole notion is farcical.

If it was an elite properly disciplined group of people... but something tells the place will be mix of thugs and boys that don't want to be there, or those who want to be there but are regularly tortured and occasionally "king hit" by thugs, thus it will turn into little jail at best and every boy's worst nightmare. There is no way you can grow patriotism this way.
The worst kind survives, and our intelligent potential screwed up.
Not with the zoo we've currently brought up

Quote:



Good point - Australia is broke - we only survive by borrowing huge amounts of money.

You of all people would dare to ask that question. When you go on and on about paying higher amounts of welfare, do you ask where the money comes from?  No I don't.  Although there seems to be many others, that do ask.