When they announced the cutback to 2 NSF years, my initial
instinct was that - somehow - it's still short of the whole story.
It wasn't until following & participating in Sardaukar's thread
that things sorta begin crystallizing together, but I'll like to
hear ersewhile opinions on this.
The new 3G army is partly based on the fact that Singapore will see
a projected surge in enlistment intake (15-20% more troops
annually) from 2006. If I assume the current full-time NSF strength
to be, say, 30,000 - I've noted figures of 50,000 but those numbers
seem to comprise regulars too - that means a yearly increase of
some 4,500-6,000. Which, extrapolated out till the end of the baby
boom, means an additional 45,000-60,000 after 10 years.
That's a sizeable percentage, raising on the current 250,000
reservist pool by, oh, at least 18% too (prior discounting of the
pai-kah's, disruptees/deferees). Of course, the SAF can create a
new combat division to absorb the troops, but that'll take a
serious commitment. Imagine the new defence budgets, possibly
beefing up the existing arsenal, renumerating make-up pay claims,
etc.
With shorter NSF stints all around, the enlistees are also going to
go into the reserves quicker. Does a shorter ICT cycle make more
pragmatic assimiliation, given the various new conditions? My own
experience also told me a reservist unit peaks around the 7th-8th
ICT stage, or around age 28-30, before collective diminishing
returns set in (even though we, when oldies, can retrain &
retrain to pass the respective proficiency tests).
Can we cut the training cycle down from 13 years to, for example, 9
years - with perhaps a corresponding readjustment of the
high-key/low-key ICT ratio, & also more reservist units -
without losing overall combat-arms operational capacity?
Make sense?
