The UK Armed Forces and the Value of the University Armed Service Units

The value of the university armed service units to the UK armed forces is not often subject to scrutiny. Drawing on a research study of the units and their importance to a number of different constituencies, Rachel Woodward, K Neil Jenkings and Alison J Williams assess both the tangible and intangible benefits to the military’s relationship with civil society.

forces ande xamines whether therei s anye vidence to support these claims. First,itlooksa tthe claim thatUSUs are valuable because theyaid recruitmentto the armed forces. Second, it looksatthe claim thatthe USUs' value resides in their capacityt oi nculcatea nd disseminate positive views of the Britisharmed forces and of defence moregenerally,whatthe authorst erm 'defence-mindedness'. It concludest hatt he USUs' recruitment function maybevaluable, but thatthere areanumberoft angibleand intangible benefits to the armed forces from thee xistence of graduatesw ith USU experiencewho have not beenrecruited to the armed forces. Looking at these benefits in turn clarifies howd efencemindedness mightw ork and confirms that the value of the units cannot be reducedt ot heir recruitmentf unction. This analysisraises political questions for the armed forces as theyseek to maintain the USUs in acontext of both budgetary austerityand the demands of the Future Reserves2020 (FR20) programme.

The USUs: Composition, Organisation and Rationale
TheU SUs aread istinctively British militaryphenomenon. Thereare passing similarities with the Junior Reserve OfficerTraining Corpsand Reserve Officer Training Corpsi nt he US, in thatt hey provide amilitaryexperience forstudents undertakingp rogrammes of study in civilian universities, 3 yetspecific features of their structure, organisation and composition areunique to the UK higher education and militaryo rganisational landscapes. Theyr ecruit solelyf rom students enrolled at UK universities but arenot formally enmeshed within degree programmes, and participation is entirely voluntary with no obligation to join the armed forces. Their missions emphasise their purposei nd eveloping awareness of the roles and ethos of their respective parents ervice, andi nd eveloping the leadership potential of their recruits. Whilst all three units -the OTC, UASand URNU -h aveu ntilr ecentlye mphasised thatt herei sn oo bligation to join the armed forces on graduation, recruitment is nowtaking on amorecentral role. 4 Atotal of 6,590students were USU membersa so f1A pril 2015. 5 Members mustberegisteredonanundergraduate or postgraduate degreeprogramme at a UK university,and mustbeeitherBritish or Commonwealth citizens.T he OTC is the largest organisation, comprising nineteen distinct units, some of which have detachments in other geographical locations within ar egion.T wo of these units (Yorkshireand North West England) aredesignatedOfficer Training Regiments (OTRs). On 1A pril 2015,t he OTCh ad 4,680 participants. 6 These participants followat raining syllabus established by the RoyalM ilitaryA cademyS andhurst, which providesa ll British Army officer initial training. This syllabus comprises keym ilitarys kills includingd rill, map readingand field craft,weapons handling, camouflaget echniques andfi rst-aid training,l eadership training,a nd the organisation and planning of battlefield tactics. The UASs comprise fourteenunits andon1April 2015 had 1,020 members. 7 The UASs provide basic militaryt raining and RAF-specific training in aircrew and ground-based roles.T he URNUsh ave fourteenu nits and on 1A pril 2015 had 880m embers. 8 TheU RNUs train on dedicated P-2000 fast inshorep atrol vessels. Training includes navigation and seamanship skills, plus otherm ilitaryspecific training. Students from all three units also undertakeadventurous training and sporting activities, and enjoys ocial events providedb yt heir respective units. 9 Theya lso partake in additional activitiess uch as representing the armedf orcesa tp ublic ceremonial and promotional events, andparticipating in charitable work. Twop oints aboutt he USUsa re significantfor the discussion thatfollows. The first relatest ot heir size. The units ares mall in proportiont ot he overall UK studentb ody,w hich fora cademic year 2013-14 comprised justu nder 2.3 million students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. 10 The units are, however, relatively large in proportion to the totalU Ka rmed forces, whicho n 1A pril 2015 was1 95,690. 11 Indeed, the URNUs' P2000 vessels areas ignificant componento ft he RoyalN avyfl eet, comprisingf ourteeno fat otal of sixtysix ships( excluding submarines) in 2014. 12 Thus, participants comprise a tinyp roportion (0.3 per cent)o ft he UK studentp opulation so mayb ev irtually invisible within highere ducation institutions, yetr epresentas ignificant proportion (3.4 per cent)i nr elation to the armed forces so will have primary visibility and significance there.The lack of visibility of the USUs within universities is significantb ecause it contributes to the lowknowledgebase aboutthe units across the highereducation sector. 13 The second pointr elatest o funding. The USUs aref unded through the defence budget,a lthoughfi nding an accuratea nd reliable figure fort otal capital and running costsh as proven impossible. Defence-budget support includes basingand equipmentcosts (for facilities and kit which mayo rm ay not be shared with othern on-USU units), training costs, and costsassociatedwith the employmentofcommanding officers and training staff.C osts also include payments to students forp articipation (bya ttendance,r ather than salaried), which is received fora ttendance at weekly drill nights, training weekends during term time, an annual summer training fortnighta nd otherr elated activities depending on the type of USU. The units aret hus under the controlo f and areaccountable to the MoD and the armedforces, and not to their catchment universities (although thereisliaison with universitiesv ia the MilitaryE ducation Committees). The question thatf ollows, then, is whether the value thatt hese units givet oU Kd efencem atches the investmento ffi nanciala nd personnel resources. This article opens up the idea of 'value' beyond an accounting model of value formoneyaccording to cost-benefit ThE uk aRmED FORCES anD ThE ValuEO FT hE uniVERSiTy aRmED SERViCE uniTS RUSI JOURNALFEBRUARY/MARCH 2016 valuations. As has been noted,a ccurate financial data aren ot available to do this. Furthermore, the reductiono ft he idea of value to afi nancialc ost-benefit analysis does not entirely capturet wo significanta spects of the USUs which mayh aveu tility to the armed forces -t heir recruitmenta nd their defencemindednessfunctions.

Recruitment
One shouldnotethe disavowaltovarying degrees, by the MoD and the three armed forces, of an explicit recruitment purposei nt he missions of the USUs. 14 Historically,a nd until relatively recently, this has been asimple and unproblematic issue -i ndeed, forU RNUs historically, therew as an explicit distancing from this idea. 15 However, fora ll three units there has alwaysb een an expectation thats ome participants mayd evelopa n interest in participating in the armed forces after they graduate, on theb asis of ap ositiveU SU experience. Ah igher proportion have typicallys hown an interest in the reserve forces rather than the regular forces. 16 With defence-policy changes introducedb yt he UK coalition governmentf rom2 010, therea re indications of greatere mphasis on the utility of the USUs forr ecruitment. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review( SDSR) pavedt he wayf or personnel changes in the British armed forces. These were seto ut in the FR20 programme, the WhiteP aper forw hich waspublished in 2013.This programme includedp rovisions fore xpanding the role of the reservesa nd their numbers, particularly fort he army;f acilitating greateri ntegration betweenr egulars andr eservesu nits; various measures aimed at reservists and their families to facilitatet heir recruitmenta nd retention; incentivesfor the recruitment of ex-regularst ot he reserves; and measures to ensureemployer support. 17 The implications of FR20 have playedout differently across the three serviceswith regardstothe USUs. Of mostsignificance fort he army is the establishment of the OTRs which seek deliberately to train and commissionr eserve officers from their studentm embersa sw ell as sharing thew idera dvocacy mission on defence-mindedness. Following extensive discussion within the army (and some resistance to the idea) the first twoOTRs were established: theYorkshire Regiment and the North West England Regiments. 18 Morerecently,OTCshavebeen identified as the focalp oint fora ll reserve-officer traininga st he FR20 programmeg ains momentum. Discussiono ft he value of the USUst ot he armedf orcest herefore necessarily has to include consideration of recruitmenta sareturn on resource investment, and becauseo fp olicy shifts, thatr ecruitmenti so rientated increasingly to the reserves, particularly forthe army.
The recruitmentf unction of the units as ap athway to ac areer for graduates in thea rmed forces has alwaysexisted. At present, OTCgraduates comprise about 40 per cento ft hose proceeding to training as regular officers witht he British Army and around6 5 per cent of those training as reserve officers. Forthe RAF, anecdotal evidence suggeststhataround 70 per centofthose selected forp ilot officert raining have UASexperience. 19 Data on studenti ntentions with regardst oac areer in the armed forces (see Table 1) gives ome insighti nto the value of the USUs in terms of recruitment. In total, 78 per cent of OTCmembers, 75 per centofUAS membersand 64 per cent of URNU membersexpressed an intention to have some kind of continued military participation following graduation. As such, the USU experience is significant both in providing an opportunityf or individuals in consolidating ap rior intention to join the armed forces before joining aU SU and mayb es ignificant in raising the possibility of joining the armed forces forthose who had neverpreviously considered it. 20 Only asmall proportion (4 per centf or the OTC, 5p er centf or the UASand 7per centfor the URNU)stated thattheyhad previously intended to join the regularso rr eserves, but were no longer intending to join anyarmed forces. Prior to being in aUSU Iintended to join the Reservesaftergraduation, and still am. 522 Ihad not intended to join the armed forces butnow intend to join the Regulars. 9 13 12 Ihad not intended to join the armed forces butnow intend to join the Reserves. 16 8 16 Ihad intended to join the Regularsbut nowintend to join the Reserves. 10 66 Ihad intended to join the Reserves but nowintend to join the Regulars. 311

Total7 8 75 64
One caninfer from this thatthe attrition effect of USU participation, in terms of intentions to join, is very low; thati s, fewe xpress ac hangeo fi ntentiona sa consequence of participation. However, these data signifyi ntentionr ather than action; the proportion who actually go on to join the armed forces (regularo r reserve)isfar lower, reflecting arangeof issuess haping graduate career decisions ando pportunities as successivec ohorts of graduatese nter the labourm arket. 21 Intention does not necessarily translate into action.
It would appear at first sightt hat the current focus on the recruitment function of the USUs as being as ource of the units' value to the armed forces, particularly forthe army, is well founded. The consolidation of this function would seem to be an obvious stepb yt hose chargedw ith oversighto ft he units. Ongoing concerns about declining rateso fr ecruitmentt ot he armed forces (particularlyf or the army,a nd particularly amongst women and ethnic minorities), coupled with the demands of the FR20 reforms to expand the proportion of militaryp ersonnel who arer eservists, make the USUs ap rime target forattempts to boostrecruitment levels, particularly to officer training. In conjunction with this, the widercontext of governmentalfi nanciala usterity, which is restrictingp ublic expenditure and demanding clear accountability fort he value of anyi nvestmenti n public goods and services, means that investmentf romt he defence budget in USUs has to be seen to result in clear and quantifiable benefits to the armed forces. It is unsurprising,t herefore, thatt he relationship betweenU SUs and armedforces recruitmentiscurrently shifting.
However, this shifti sl ikely to have unintended consequences in terms of the non-financial value of the USUswhich in turnm ay reduce considerably the value thatt he USUsp rovidet ot he armed The relationship between USUs and armed-forces recruitment is shifting forces. Thinkings olely in terms of value formoneyand recruitment-encouraged by governmentfinancial stringencies and coupled with alimited understanding of whatthe USUsactually do -brings with it risks to the wider functions and thus overallv alue of the USUs. Specifically, thereare concerns about those functions which impact indirectly on the armed forces andthe widerdefencesector but whichhavebeen viewed nonethelessas partofthe value of the units.Theseare often wrappedupinanidea of defencemindedness.

Defence-Mindedness
Considerable anecdotal evidence exists supporting the viewt hatt he USUs inculcatew ithin the broaderc ivilian public an understanding of the armed forces. Ad ominantm odel understands this as happening through the process by which universityg raduates, as an educated elite,t end to pursue careers which willultimately lead to significance, powerand leadership in the civilian world -t he so-called' captains of industry'. 22 Put simply,a ccording to this line of argumentitisinthe long-terminterests of thea rmed forces to have within the civilian world,particularly at elite levels, ab ody of peoplew ith as ympathetic understanding of the armed forces which has beeni nformed by experiencew ith, and to an extent within,t hosea rmed forces. Sincet he USU experiencet ends to be viewedb ys tudentp articipants in general as positive, 23 the argumenti s thatformer participants, the majority of whom do not seek militarycareers, take thatpositiveimpressioninto the civilian world, wheretheymay exert influence. In due course, positivebenefits -value -are reaped by the armed forces themselves. The authorsl abel this idea 'defencemindedness'.
Those with oversighto ft he USUs have long believedthatUSUs encourage defence-mindednessa nd thatt his benefits the armedf orcesi nt he long term. 24 In pursuing civilian careers, it is believedthatUSU participants take aset of positivea ttitudes and an informed understanding of defence issuesa nd the armedf orcesi nto the workplace, which in turn would be valuable to the armed forces andt od efence.
Them echanisms through which this transfero fu nderstanding might occur aren ot specified in this model, beyond the notion that, as an educated elite, graduates includes ome people who mayultimately rise to positions of power and influence in their civilian working lives. Also unspecified in this anecdotal model is an accounto fw hat, exactly, thati nfluencem ightc onstitute, beyond an avowal of its existence.
This modelo fd efence-mindedness raisest wo specific questions. The first is about its contemporarya pplicability. The 'captain of industry' model harks back to ap ost-wars ocial formationi n which university-levele ducation was the preserve of as mall social elite,t he majorityo fw hom would rise through structured career pathways in their chosen profession. University entrance and graduate career pathways aren ow considerably morec omplex. About 36 per cent of 18-19 year oldsl eaving secondary education in the UK now proceedtouniversity, 25 and the diversity of the UK higher education sector in terms of degree programmes andt he socioeconomic characteristics of entrants is notable. 26 Furthermore, over successive cycles of economicgrowth, the graduate labour market has become extremely diverse, moving away from am odel which assumes the pursuit of ac learly marked professionalpathway.
The modelo fd efence-mindedness amongsti nfluential captains of industry also raisesas econdq uestion about whethert hata warenesso fd efence andu nderstanding of the armedf orces instilled through aUSU experienceis, in fact, positive.T his modela ssumes that participants in USUs generally come out with ap ositivea ttitude of the armed forces. However, graduatesmay not come out with unremittingly positiveattitudes: theymay promoteideas thatare neutral, critical or even negative,w hich would ultimately be counterproductivet o defence missions and the armedforces.
Data on studentU SU participants' perceptions of the armedforcesprovide thes tartingp ointf or an exploration of value throughd efence-mindedness.I n the surveyofstudentmembersofUSUs conducted by the authors,s tudents were asked to identify whether their ThE uk aRmED FORCES anD ThE ValuEO FT hE uniVERSiTy aRmED SERViCE uniTS RUSI JOURNALFEBRUARY/MARCH 2016 experiences since joining aU SU had affected their viewsofthe British armed forces. Only seven( of 1,798) reported thatt heir views were unchanged and remained negative,and only 1per centof the sample reported thattheir views had changeda nd were nown egative.T hese twofigures areanunsurprising reflection of the entirely voluntary natureo fU SU participation and the fact thats tudents who did not like the experiencew ould not, by definition, be participating in USUsand thus completing the survey.
At otal of 77 per cent reported thatt heir views were unchanged and remained positive, and 15 per cents aid thatt heir views had changed and were nowp ositive. Thoses electing' other' were asked to specifya nd responses indicatedm ixed or nuanced opinions, including differential views on the regular versus reserve army, ambivalence about the armed forces becauseofperceptions of lowm orale in the parents ervices, critiques of foreign policy and thus the roles undertaken by the armed forces, exposuret ofl awsi nt he organisation and managemento ft he armedf orces and dissatisfaction with this, and some comments about the behaviour of some other students and personnelw ithin individual units.T he majorityo ft hose surveyede xpressedap ositivev iewo f the armed forces, whichc an be seen as afirsts tept owards positivedefencemindedness.T he question thatt hen follows is whethert his positivev iewi s takenf orward into graduates' civilian workinglives.
Throughfi fty-four semi-structured research interviews with graduates in civilian employmentw ho had taken parti naU SU whilsta tu niversity but who had not subsequently pursueda career in ther egular armedf orces, the research generated data aboutdefencemindedness amongstg raduatesi nt wo ways:b ya sking direct questions about attitudes towardsthe armedforces; and by asking moregeneral questions about the graduates' working lives and the ways in whichthe USU experiencehad (or did not have)utility there.
In response to directq uestions abouttheir general opinion of the armed forces, none of theg raduatess aid they had an egative viewo ft hem.A ll the graduate interviewees consideredt heir views to be positive, with two-thirds giving reasons fort heir positivity.T he mostcommon explanation forapositive vieww as the understanding graduates felt theyh ad aboutw hatt he armed forces, as an organisation, do and what militaryp ersonnel actuallyd o, and this wasf requently couchedi nt erms which suggestedrespect formilitarypersonnel.
The identification of ap ositive attitude towardst he armedf orcesb y graduates wasnot without qualification. Some graduates, notwithstanding their generally positivea ttitude, criticised the culture and organisation of the armedf orces, as well as the working practices, includingp erceptions of mismanagement. Interviewees conveyed as trong sense thatt heirs wasa ni nformed view, developedw ith reference to experience. 27 Thats aid, theya lso articulatedt he idea thatt he USUso fferedav erys pecific experience of militarylife, whichdid not necessarily anddirectly equate with the experiences of regular personnel, particularly deployedpersonnel.Yet theymaintained thatU SU participation allowedt hem an experientially basede mpathetic understanding.
Respondents were also asked whether theyt houghtt heir positivev iews were representativeo f former USU members; across the sample this wasconfirmed.
Graduatei nterviewees were then asked whether theyt houghtt heyh ad influenced others' views of the armed forces. This wasakey question in terms of them odel outlined above about the utility fort he armed forces of the USUs in facilitating the transmission of defence-mindedness. Responses herew erei lluminating,b ecause they suggestedad egree of caution on the parto fr espondents, with very fewi dentifying themselves as vocal advocates of the British armed forces -a nd identifying as influential because Few graduates identified themselves as vocal armed-forces supporters of this. Rather,r espondents suggested thatt heyw ereq uitec autiousi nt he ways in whichtheymightdrawontheir USU experiencea nd the positivev iew of the armedf orcest hatt his mayh elp to develop, whichthen might influence others.R espondents suggestedt hat theyd id not seto ut to change minds or influence opiniond irectly,b ut rather thatt he experienceg avet hem aqualifiedviewofthe armed forces to be shared in contexts wherethe matter mightb ed iscusseda nd in contexts wherer espondents felt it appropriate to giveav iew. Graduates recognised the advocacy function thatt heym ight perform, but expressedc aution about the extent to which theyfelt theycould claim expertise about defence and militaryi ssues. This wasc ouched in terms which suggestedt hatg raduates, as individuals, consideredt hatt hey had little powertoinfluenceand shape opinion in general terms.
Am ored irecta nd specific role in terms of influence wasidentifiedwhere graduates talked of their interactionswith either familymembers, or with younger people in either organised(youth group) or informal settings, particularly where conversations were shared about the possibilities of either joining aU SU or enteringacareer in the armed forces. If USU graduatesare influential in terms of their positiveviews of the armed forces, it is onlyi ni ndividual and personal ways.T herew as very little evidence for graduates exertingv isible and direct influencemoregenerally across the range of social interactions.
Graduatei nterviewees were also asked questions which indirectly explored the link between USU participation and defence-mindedness. The first of these concernedw hether, and if so how, the USU experiencem ightb ei nfluential in the respondents' practicesi nt he civilian labour marketa sr ecruiters. Of particular interest wasw hether, as recruiters, USU graduatesdeployedtheir owne xperiencest om akes enseo fj ob applicants' ownU SU experiences,a nd whetherapplicants' militaryexperiences morebroadly were viewedfavourably.
About one-thirdo fg raduate respondents had some experiencea s recruitersi nt he civilian labour market, and thisi ncludedasmall number with experienceo fr ecruiting fort hird-sector organisations. Respondents identified that, as recruiters, theyt ended to show an interest in someonewith abackground which theyc ould recognise. USU or militaryexperience in ajob applicantwas not the sole activityt ow hich recruiters were alert, but it wass ignificant and could be read as indicative of the characteristics and workingp ractices of applicants-including acapacity forhard work and fordiligence in the execution of tasks. Also noted were assumptions that am ilitaryb ackgroundm ightt ranslate into aparticular manner in the workplace and thus indicatet he potential fit of an individual within an organisation. The militaryb ackgroundo fa na pplicant could also be read forindications about skills such as team-working,abilities with organisation and logistics,a nd capacity forself-management.
Interviewees also expressed caution, however, in terms of theadaptability of former military personnelt oc ivilian lifei ns ome instances. Although there wasn oe vidence that those with a USU or military background received an unfair advantage in the workplace from recruiterswho areUSU graduates, therew erec ontextsw heret he military background of aj ob applicantc ould be looked on favourably.T his shows how defence-mindednessw orksi ns ubtle ways,e xtendingf or example into the labour market.I ti sn ot simply about expressing ap ositiveo pinion about the armedf orces, but also includes am ore sophisticated levelo fu nderstanding of military institutions and their roles in shaping the capabilitiesa nd aptitudes of their personnel, and the recognition of those witht hesec apabilities and attitudes.
As econd line of questions which indirectly explored the link between USU participation and defence-mindedness asked respondents about the value thatt heyt hemselves broughtt ot he USUso rt he armed forces. Therew as a strong sense among manyi nterviewees of investmenta nd return over time in ther elationshipb etween thea rmed forces andindividuals through the USUs. Although at an individual levelt hese returns mightbeincidental and modest, cumulatively theypointedtoareturn on the investment.
Such benefits aret angiblea nd intangible.T angibleb enefitsc ould be defined as the direct, materialorpractical effects of thea pplication -p rimarily in civiliane mployment-o fk nowledge generated through USU involvement which wasseen as helpful in some wayto the armed forces andsometimesdirectly to USUs -i nterviewsw ith graduates highlighted ag reat manyi nstanceso f these. Examples include an air-traffic controller workingi nc ivil aviation, able to facilitatehis local UAS'sflyingtraining by managemento fa irfield landing slots and airfield use costs, and an individual with accountancy qualifications able to assisth is local OTCu nit with various businessp rocesses. Tangible benefits were also identified by individuals in terms of their contributions to the armed forces whilst theyw ereU SU students providing,for example, abody of people to playt he enemy form ilitaryt raining exercises,t op rovidec riticalm ass at public remembrance events, andsignificantly forthe RoyalNavy-manning the P2000 patrol vessels able to visit ports inaccessibletolargerwarshipsand thus quiteliterally flying the flag forthe RoyalN avy. The tangible benefits about which individuals spokewereoftenquite modest, perhapsevenprosaic.
With the exception of one individual, none of the respondents really fitted the 'captain of industry' model to whichanecdotes about the value of USUs consistently seemed to refer. Instead, the study identifiedar angeo fm ore incidentalmechanisms through which the value of the USUsfl owed to the armed forces in tangible,p ractical ways.W hat is notable hereishow unpredictable this process is; the armedforcesare takinga risk by investing resources in the training of individuals whilstt heya re students, with no guarantee that therew ill be a tangible return on this investment.
Intangible benefits were also identifiable. These could be defined as indirecta nd perceptual. The most USUs have tangible and intangible benefits significantw as the advocacy function thatindividuals mightperform. Examples given to illustratet his includeds upport in terms of time andm oneyt hatt hey providedt oa rmed-forcesc harities,t he tacit encouragementt hati ndividuals mightp rovidet oy ounger family members, friends or other young people about opportunitiesfor an armed-forces career andwhatthis might provide,and involvementi np ublic remembrance or public educational events. Thei dea of being an ambassador fort he armed forces wasoftencited;some individuals made the pointthatbecause their civilian post-graduation lives maynot accordwith perceived stereotypes of whatamilitary person was, this seemed to add weight to positivearguments about the role and function of the armed forces.
Graduatesi dentifiedaf urther set of intangible benefits in terms of their utility as students workingw ith the armedforceswhilsttheyweremembers of aU SU.T hesew eres poken about in terms of thes ocialising function that these former students thought they had fort he armed forces. An umber of graduates commentedthattheybrought something,a ss tudents, which was distinctive to militaryc ontextsi ncluding that, as ag roup of students, they' kept it real' fort he militarys taffr unning the units. This is important to notebecause it is ar eminder that the relationship betweent he USUsa nd widerc ivilian society,a sw ith the armedf orcesm ore generally,isatwo-way street.

Conclusion
Therei sar isk thata sagreater proportion of USU participantsa re recruited into the regular and reserve armed forces, thep roportion of those with USU experience who do not join the armed forces, andwho aretherefore arguably morea ttuned to the civilian mindset, will decline. Thisisinacontext wheret he proportion of the civilian population with informed familiarity with the armed forces is declining. Clearly,the challenges of FR20 and the wider context of financial stringenciesf acing the defence budget areinturn raising some difficult issuesf or those responsible fort he USUs. As beneficiaries of public investment, the USUs need to be seen