Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
2,889 thoughts on “Open Thread – Land, Sea and Air II”
x
“The statistics won’t reflect true wastage because a lot leave before they get a service number. I doubt they can be tracked. But then you can argue that it’s perfectly reasonable for blokes to turn up on drill nights for a few months and decide no thanks. TA will almost certainly have a higher turn over as its simply more accessible.”
No giving it a punt without too much formality probably retains as many as it looses. And it goes without saying that turnover will be high as you said and why I didn’t bother mentioning it in the first instance.
“Lots of tiny little things need to be done. Send all TA candidates to Litchfield for regular selection, have the same medical standards (TA medicals whilst not as bad can be less rigorous) this will weed out the ones who are likely to jack or just don’t fancy it.”
That is a big jump but a necessary one. Back in the 1930s when the RAF was struggling for recruits they raise the bar and volunteers rose. Another “retention” problem is those you categorize as “screamers” get in because the bar is low and then are hard to shift. Before when I have proposed a stronger contractual relationship between TA and volunteer I have been strongly countered with the argument that in the current economic environment that might be difficult for many to square with their employers. That is a good argument. That though leads me back to thinking that the type of person the TA wants is already in TA and there isn’t a huge pool of potential recruits out there. Lastly if the MoD balls up the redundancy process many ex-regulars won’t want to join the TA. Ex-regulars and the TA seems to black and white issue; some want to carry on soldiering, while others have had their fill.
“you need decent leadership to grip it all and make sure it happens.”
I thought many TA OCs were commissioned former SNCOs? Isn’t that a good source of leaders? Or am I wrong?
“inspectorate of TA courses over and above the corps inspectorates to make sure the courses are fit and proper for the TA.”
You would think for an organisation big on inspections that would already happen. Do you mean turning up on a drill night and sitting in on classes? Spot inspections?
Phil
No there’s direct entry officers. Most these days do the direct entry course. It’s long.
I mean an inspectorate to see that each trades TA in camp courses are run properly and fat knackers aren’t passing. There’s this tendency, and regulars are the worst, that it’s just TA we’ll pass old bastard. Negative shouldn’t happen. So I think an over arching TA inspectorate. As for drill nights they are really just a remember you’re in the TA, do some phys, prepare for the next weekend thing a waste of effort to inspect them.
It’s all down to leadership and execution. If you look at all the documents and plans they are awesome. They make sense, they are cogent and it should all work swimmingly. But, lack of resources and poor leadership especially means these lovely cogent documents are not fulfilled. It’s no good having a trade career plan that requires this or that if there’s no MTDs to do the course and what often happens is fat knackers taking MTDs to sweep the floors in the TAC with no intention of going anywhere, while the young thrusters are frustrated. That is a leadership problem.
wf
@Phil, I know we’re revisiting old ground, but the concept of exercising deploying TA formations would put a cramp on the fat bastards. After all, if the time comes around and someone has failed their CFT, cannot turn up at the right weekends, they can be discharged
Phil
They can now. Do how the hell are they still in? I think every unit has a good handful of the bounty hunting, shag the door of the TAC types. There is the need for extra work to be done outside of normal TA hours but it needs to be control. Banish the days of unemployed SSgts dragging out a stores check for a week etc. Thats all money that should go for training. Stores etc need checking and sorting but manage it! Leadership again.
x
@ Phil
I may be getting my terminology wrong. The chap who was the OC of our neighbouring TA infantry unit was an ex-CSM from the infantry who had been commissioned. I didn’t mean TA volunteer officers (or officer candidates.)
” As for drill nights they are really just a remember you’re in the TA, do some phys, prepare for the next weekend thing a waste of effort to inspect them.”
So that apparent lack of purpose I perceived on TA drill nights wasn’t just me not understanding what was happening but a real lack of purpose. And I suppose there is limited scope really for lectures or demonstrations isn’t there? In your trade most work in the NHS so that is on the job training. RLC and RE can’t do much. As for infantry well fieldcraft is best taught in the field I suppose. And Signals has been cut right back and has changed so much in character that they can’t do much either. Um. So no scope at all for making “drill night” a more, um, “substantial” affair? I know we used keep more cadets because of having regular weekends away and week’s camps than we did for parade nights. But we were playing at it. I suppose a question is how much reminding does a TA bod need for it to hit home that he is in part of the army? That will vary from person to person; from well rounded individual to Walt.
“If you look at all the documents and plans they are awesome.”
Sounds just like cadets.
x
@ Phil
I was always surprised by how much “work” went on at TAC (I will use your acronym) during the week.
Perhaps what is needed is for the TA to be put on the same footing as the RNR. Fewer better equipped centres that entail a bit of travel. The RNR is a lot smaller than TA. No so that won’t work………
Again I think we need to look at how allies do it. And look at their volunteer specialists. Are they more professional? Fitter? More committed? If so why? Could there even be a failing in society as whole? Has, and I will use this word loosely, our sense of our patriotism declined? Do Norwegians turn up for home guard training out of a sense of national pride that is more widespread in Norwegian society?
Are plans to expand the TA folly? Should we just keep the bits that work such as the field hospitals or the “semi-professional” units like 21/23 SAS or 4 PARA and scrap the rest and use the money for the regulars?
Phil
Yeah you can go for a commission any time in the TA. It’s more like the US OCS scheme. But there is also the no doubt by now renamed DETAPO scheme which has or had 5 modules.
Drill nights are odd things. I know many units try and make them interesting but there’s just not much scope as you say to do more than phys, admin and maybe a repetitive lecture. I’ve always thought of them more as a conduit for organising and preparing for weekends and getting the blokes in and going through admin and problems and course bookings etc.
wf
It’s noticeable that the difference with the TA and some UOTC units is that 2 hours on a weeknight is fairly restricting, but 4 hours on a Wednesday afternoon allows a lot more scope for real training. Not realistic for the TA of course, but it’s indicative of how longer periods of training are far more useful than the same time split into evening 2 hour chunks.
I did mention this before, but I did suggest drill halls were less bases for TA units, and more like drop in centres for individual training. You lose some of the unit feel, but you build more of this on camps and weekends anyway. I know nothing about the RNR, but perhaps someone could enlighten us further?
Phil
4 PARA semi professional? I know plenty of folk from it and whilst they have a good ethos and are generally not screamers they’re not semi professional either. They’re not much different from any good TA unit which has fostered and maintained a good unit identity and high standards.
As for TACs. There’s a balance, spread them out and your travel budget sky rockets and your recruiting footprint gets smaller. Have too many and they become inefficient. But then it depends on the unit. I believe that there could be excellent scope in getting heads together and having a TA wing in a community building jointly funded and maintained. Or turning over parts of TACs to more community functions and charging thereby cost sharing and bringing the TA more into public life. Couple of strong rooms for kit and you’re good. Can probably even have an armoury with today’s remote alarm systems and sensors.
I was just watching the news it showed TA operating Challenger 2′s?
x
@ Phil
4PARA? I just meant better than average. For all those reasons you say.
We have 4 TACs locally. Our nearest one is in mothballs. I am told there are reasons why it hasn’t been disposed of, but can’t say why. In the conurbation to my immediate east there are three about 2 to 3 miles apart. Two are late 40s/early 50 buildings and cost a fortune to maintain. And the other is a newish smaller building. The RFCA would love to loose both the older buildings and build one new centre. Their compromise position is to house two units at one of the older buildings. But there isn’t space for two units at the better older building apparently, and I am lead to believe their is pressure to keep the building for historical reasons which is another reason against a new centre. I find that hard to believe but my sources are good.
As for having TA centres in other buildings or allowing community use. I could see the former working if it was say a police station or a post office building or some other governmental building. But apart from those it is a non-starter because of security. And the same for letting the community in to share facilities. It will never happen under the current RFCA set up and with the apparent threat being terrorism. One off uses yes. But actually sharing no way. And I speak as somebody who was a committee member and chairmen of Sea Cadet unit that was situated within a TA centre. It was a freaking nightmare. The TA, the soldiery, great. The RFCA? Bunch of utter tossers.
Phil
My old RFCA used to let the TAC out to community groups on a weekly basis. Karate, Scouts, etc etc. It also has an armoury and stores. Worked a charm. I don’t know if they charge for how much but there’s always something going on in there.
ArmChairCivvy
RE: Think Defence says:
June 19, 2012 at 12:26 and the link to Independent
If there is any accuracy in being mobilised for 2-3 years at a time, that is bringing the short service contract back, but calling it TA
- very confusing, but it is only a short newspaper piece, quickly put together
Phil
Think you’re reading it wrong. They mean I think the AF can furnish force elements for 2-3 years of medium operations.
remember talking to Jim or Trouble on the Warships1 forum, can’t remember which, and he talked about having worked with french forces and considered to be the total capability to be a bit of a paper tiger.
because the very capable pointy bits masked a lot of second rate forces.
the parallel is worrying.
x
@ Phil
I have attended one off events at TA centres through out the city. Perhaps our situation was different in that our building was actually in the grounds and that put some strain on the relationship. We used to have events as long as they were unit related such as firework parties. We wouldn’t have dared say to have a car wash event or opened up for a car boot even though our water build was doubled because we paid half the drainage. It was difficult. Gate management was a big issue. The TA and ACF were buggers for leaving the gate open and we would get the blame.
Phil
Yeah I guess it depends on local arrangements and how miserable the RFCAs are. My current TAC does nothing of the sort and it’s in the same RFCA. Personally where it can be done I think it should be. As cadets we shared our hut with the RBL, Scouts and WI!
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Jedi,
If you abolish conscription (which units, btw, after the Algeria experience, can’t [by now should be in the past tense] be deployed outside of France anyway, except in a declared major war), then the last few cohorts going through would not be very motivated… neither would their trainers be, as they are already focussed onto the next phase
- so I would not worry too much about the French split: they have not only an external intervention force, but an internal one as well, within the Gendarmerie (and I am not talking about CRS for riots)
Chris.B.
“Should we just keep the bits that work such as… or the “semi-professional” units like 21/23 SAS…”
– By all accounts 21/23 SAS are a long way from being semi-professional. In the sense of when some boring training weekend comes up, almost nobody shows up. But when it comes to shooting stuff, blowing stuff up, or going on a weekend course to do something exciting almost the whole lot arrive, accompanied by varied caches of the latest gucci kit bought off the civilian market.
jedibeeftrix
i believe it was a more fundamental problem re training and equipment, but no doubt conscription played a part.
tho this was only a few years ago.
x
Chris B said “But when it comes to shooting stuff, blowing stuff up, or going on a weekend course to do something exciting almost the whole lot arrive, accompanied by varied caches of the latest gucci kit bought off the civilian market.”
I am struggling to see what is wrong with that!
I had better qualify that. Those who get through selection aren’t really going to be the type to do boring are they?
As long as they pass muster that is all that matters.
Phil
21/23 aren’t looked upon very well by 22. And to be fair they were units intended for very different roles. I don’t know what 21/23 SAS are supposed to actually do these days but in Afghan they are being used more like SSFG than SAS.
Phil
21/23 aren’t looked upon very well by 22. And to be fair they were units intended for very different roles. I don’t know what 21/23 SAS are supposed to actually do these days but in Afghan they are being used more like SSFG than SAS.
Phil
In addition, I am reading, although they are from the same obvious source, that the AF in the new Army is meant for operations lasting 2-3 years and I am wondering if the Army has no intention of conducting anything longer than 4-5 years? In my mind that would undermine the whole Adaptable Force thing, you know, where you adapt as you have no idea what you’ll be doing.
Further thoughts are that if the model was an enduring never ending operation then you’d need 4 AF Bdes to meet such a model so that they’d mobilise once every 5 years. You’d have the 3 RF bdes going through, 2 AF bdes, and then the 3 RF bde (tour intervals are 2 years for regulars) and the second tranche of 2 AF bdes.
So you’d then have 4 AF Bdes able to be mobilised for enduring operations, one AF to augment and 1 for overseas and 1 for ceremonial (aka London District).
x
Phil said “Afghan they are being used more like SSFG than SAS.”
But if they are useful, turn up, and meet fitness standards does it matter? I don’t know much about them. But I always imagined they were more for back up and support than the “real deal”. Are they better motivated and more “professional” than typical TA units? If so they must be doing something right. Hopefully that is more to do with doing the job, and not the cap badge.
Chris.B.
“But if they are useful, turn up, and meet fitness standards does it matter?”
– I’ve heard the argument put roughly like this by an ex-22; if it only takes few weekend jaunts to keep someone up to the standard required by the SAS, then surely the regular infantry could fufill the requirement and then some?
Delivered with a rather large dollop of sarcasm.
Phil
I don’t know much about them either. I know a few folk who have done TA selection and I met a few out in Afghan but that’s it. From what I know they occupy a strange limbo where they aren’t really TA (the commitment is almost full time) but they aren’t regular either.
Also, a big problem I have personally noticed with units like any airborne TA unit or RMR or TA SAS is that they tend to attract people who want to pass the course, the same types who do ultra marathons and so on. They have no interest in the military side of things other than doing the phys and completing the physical challenges. They are welcomed with open arms as fit motivated individuals but they have ZERO intention of staying once they’ve passed – they’re then off running across the Sahara on their hands.
ArmChairCivvy
Would be interesting to take stock of where we got to, with the Future of the Army thread
- some things could be done with a very quick rewind, as announcements should be out before too long (Parliament going off to the pastures green)
- some things we did not get to at all, in depth (like tactical comms etc)
wf
@Chris.B, @Phil: my very limited experience of ppl in 21 is that they a) worked part time as it was impossible to meet the training requirement while working full time b) they were very Army-barmy and c) their career was often cut short by injury. I did know one that transferred to R Squadron as it was then, which might indicate 22′s attitude wasn’t necessarily as negative as sometimes painted.
x
@ Chris B
Some RM refer to the RMR as the “Rubber Daggers” so I understand what he is saying.
@ Phil
So we are no further forward then?
How do we “incentivize” the suitable to join then?
More on the new structure of the army, focusing on the role of special forces. One interesting piece of information is that Gurkhas who formed reinforcement companies are getting the chop as are the battalions they were part of.
Mike W
@tjposhea
Another piece of interesting information from the “Independent article seems to be that the Airborne Brigade (Do they mean Air Assault?) will have Warrior vehicles. Or have I got that entirely wrong and is it a case of poor grammmar/sentence structure/word order by the journalist concerned. One expects the highest standards from papers such as the “Independent” but one never knows nowadays. Are the Warriors perhaps to equip the Armoured Infantry units in the Armoured Brigades? Here is the extract. See what you think.
“The “Reaction” force, according to confidential documents, will be comprised of three armoured brigades, each with a tank regiment, two infantry regiments and an airborne brigade, commanded by a major general and armed with two regiments of Apache helicopter gunships and Warrior fighting vehicles.”
tjposhea
I imagine the warriors are spoken about in relation to the ‘Reaction Forces’ three armoured brigades. Although they maybe looking to experiment with parachuting warriors, like the russians do. Although the likely hood of this is small, so i can only assume they will be for the armoured infantry in the armoured brigades.
The term ‘airborne’ keeps being used by the media. It must mean that the army have either realised they are unable to have an air assault brigade or they see the need for more specialised troops in a smaller army. The article also mentions an expanding role for special forces, the airborne forces easily make up the core of 22 and they are the SFSG (1PARA) . The creation of a fully fledged airborne brigade may be looking to keep the size of special forces the same, one of the arguments for keeping a large army, is that it provides a pool large enough to find soldiers capable of passing UKSF selection. The parachute regiment and airborne forces have always provided over 50 percent of these men establishing them in a proper brigade will see more men step up to take p company and in turn UKSF selection.
Phil
“Are the Warriors perhaps to equip the Armoured Infantry units in the Armoured Brigades? Here is the extract. See what you think.”
I think its journalists not knowing what they are talking about. I would hazard a guess that there will be no Warriors 16X. And again, the media are using a title “airborne” which means something to us but means soldiers from the sky to them whether or not its parachuting, TALO or helicopter assault. Airborne would be a better title though unless its going to drop to just II and III PARA then it should be 16 Parachute Brigade again.
It is looking like the open ended enduring model is dead. The senior officer quoted does have a point about it being a failure of strategy but the question is (a) will this nudge politicians into making sure the job is done properly first time or more likely sadly (b) the politicians try to do something on the cheap and ignore the structural limitations of the Army. Something the brass will have been worrying about.
Mike W
@tjposhea and Phil
I agree with what both of you say. The Warrior seems a most inappropiate vehicle for Airborne/Airmobile/Air Assault forces. Far too heavy. Now, the CVR(T)2 family. That would be far more suitable!
Chris.B.
Sticking with 22 SAS for a minute and the Independent article linked above;
“….want to expand the type of combat carried out by the SAS and the SBS….”
I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to hear that. One of the most consistent complaints that seems to come from “ex-them” is people trying to use them as some kind of shock troops and not as a high value asset that is used sparingly or not at all if a suitable role cannot be found.
Phil
Damn them!
If the powers that be want to take highly trained, expensive, professional fighting men and put them in a C130 and crash it into the middle of an enemy country in the midst of a defended air base then that’s just what they’ll bloody well do!
x
Re: shock troops
Isn’t that why SF have 1PARA call to provide the extra manpower for those missions just outside typical SF work?
All very well expanding SF’s work load but where are the extra C17s to move them? What about bringing Albion back on stream? Or are these lot supposed go via Ryan Air, Interail pass, or in a minibus? Mobility doesn’t come cheap. Tomorrow won’t be like Afghanistan where they can just fly into theatre, jump in a helicopter, and go.
Let me see now. We can’t seem to get a handle on how we can expand the TA; even though we seem to understand the problems. And the SF part of the new plan seems shaky. At least the middle bit is OK with one of us!!!
I am going to sit on my hands now until something more concrete appears from the MoD.
Chris.B.
I think the line of thinking goes something along the lines of; “Well, they spend a lot of time shooting on ranges. Arguably twice as accurate as your average soldier. Ergo, following the ‘Hoon Theorum’, a unit of 60 SAS is worth 120 normal soldiers. Send them in!”
Which is of course a great way of getting 60 expensively trained, highly motivated soldiers killed for little appreciable benefit.
As for the SFSG, there’s naturally quite a lot of hush, hush surrounding just what exactly it is they do. As far as I can tell it’s a bit like the old Lynx and the Apache deal, where “them” are supposed to be the Lynx (find the enemy) and 1 PARA is the Apache (drop in to visit them in them middle of the night. Without cookies). At least in the Afghan theatre. God knows what they’re supposed to do in a general dust up.
Now did anyone see on the news about the latest attempt by Krazy Kirchner to save her Presidency?
x
Is she hiding with Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London?
As for SF Group. Yep that is what I understand what they do.
Chris.B.
She should be so lucky. Apparently she tried to give Cameron an envelope at the G20 summit with a whole bunch of papers in it detailing some UN resolutions in favour of “Las Malvinas” or something. Stupid bint. I’d just love to see Cameron head butt her. Now that would be a vote winner.
wf
@Chris.B: that would hardly slow her down. Looking her up and down, then muttering something about how even the best plastic surgeons can’t work that sort of miracles might be more effective
Tubby
I wonder/worry that the reference to ““The “Reaction” force, according to confidential documents, will be comprised of three armoured brigades, each with a tank regiment, two infantry regiments and an airborne brigade, commanded by a major general and armed with two regiments of Apache helicopter gunships and Warrior fighting vehicles…” in the Independent article is code to mean that we will only have enough support helicopter’s to move the airborne brigade. Also I admit to being a bit clueless on the Army front, but how are they going to work in the Royal Artillery into the Reaction forces, presumably no reaction force should be deployed without the ability to mass indirect fire and operate its own air defence?
Phil
Don’t know mate I think we’ve squeezed all we can out of the leaks. Now to wait.
ArmChairCivvy
Phil, agreed, it is almost turning into misinformation when uninformed press starts to rehash the releases
- anyone know when the full release of the recommendations is due (I take it they will release the version where only recommendations taken up are included)?
Phil
No idea. I don’t think this is a recommendation I think it’s the settled plan. CGS refers to it as happening in his 11 June speech. And Carter said in an interview on Armynet that it’s been signed off internally since May. I think they are now in the watch the politicians pull it apart for political gain phase.
Aussie Johnno
Just letting you guys know.
HMAS Choules (ex Largs Bay) has broken down out here. The ship was on its way from Sydney to the Army exercise area at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland when one (of 6) main power transformers failed cutting ships speed by a stated 50% and causing a return to Sydney.
If the rumour in the Australian newspaper this morning is correct RFA ships engineers have previously reported overheating in both transformers and propulsion motots of Bay class vessels.
Not ruch a bargain afterall?
Does raise a few questions when a single power transformer failure can effectively cripple the ship.
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Johnno, sure does
“Not ruch a bargain afterall?
Does raise a few questions when a single power transformer failure can effectively cripple the ship.”
- no RN ship (other than one on charter) can operate in ice
- I wonder how many are unsuited for hot climates (I guess everything else than an engine arrangement can be fixed afterwards)
“The statistics won’t reflect true wastage because a lot leave before they get a service number. I doubt they can be tracked. But then you can argue that it’s perfectly reasonable for blokes to turn up on drill nights for a few months and decide no thanks. TA will almost certainly have a higher turn over as its simply more accessible.”
No giving it a punt without too much formality probably retains as many as it looses. And it goes without saying that turnover will be high as you said and why I didn’t bother mentioning it in the first instance.
“Lots of tiny little things need to be done. Send all TA candidates to Litchfield for regular selection, have the same medical standards (TA medicals whilst not as bad can be less rigorous) this will weed out the ones who are likely to jack or just don’t fancy it.”
That is a big jump but a necessary one. Back in the 1930s when the RAF was struggling for recruits they raise the bar and volunteers rose. Another “retention” problem is those you categorize as “screamers” get in because the bar is low and then are hard to shift. Before when I have proposed a stronger contractual relationship between TA and volunteer I have been strongly countered with the argument that in the current economic environment that might be difficult for many to square with their employers. That is a good argument. That though leads me back to thinking that the type of person the TA wants is already in TA and there isn’t a huge pool of potential recruits out there. Lastly if the MoD balls up the redundancy process many ex-regulars won’t want to join the TA. Ex-regulars and the TA seems to black and white issue; some want to carry on soldiering, while others have had their fill.
“you need decent leadership to grip it all and make sure it happens.”
I thought many TA OCs were commissioned former SNCOs? Isn’t that a good source of leaders? Or am I wrong?
“inspectorate of TA courses over and above the corps inspectorates to make sure the courses are fit and proper for the TA.”
You would think for an organisation big on inspections that would already happen. Do you mean turning up on a drill night and sitting in on classes? Spot inspections?
No there’s direct entry officers. Most these days do the direct entry course. It’s long.
I mean an inspectorate to see that each trades TA in camp courses are run properly and fat knackers aren’t passing. There’s this tendency, and regulars are the worst, that it’s just TA we’ll pass old bastard. Negative shouldn’t happen. So I think an over arching TA inspectorate. As for drill nights they are really just a remember you’re in the TA, do some phys, prepare for the next weekend thing a waste of effort to inspect them.
It’s all down to leadership and execution. If you look at all the documents and plans they are awesome. They make sense, they are cogent and it should all work swimmingly. But, lack of resources and poor leadership especially means these lovely cogent documents are not fulfilled. It’s no good having a trade career plan that requires this or that if there’s no MTDs to do the course and what often happens is fat knackers taking MTDs to sweep the floors in the TAC with no intention of going anywhere, while the young thrusters are frustrated. That is a leadership problem.
@Phil, I know we’re revisiting old ground, but the concept of exercising deploying TA formations would put a cramp on the fat bastards. After all, if the time comes around and someone has failed their CFT, cannot turn up at the right weekends, they can be discharged
They can now. Do how the hell are they still in? I think every unit has a good handful of the bounty hunting, shag the door of the TAC types. There is the need for extra work to be done outside of normal TA hours but it needs to be control. Banish the days of unemployed SSgts dragging out a stores check for a week etc. Thats all money that should go for training. Stores etc need checking and sorting but manage it! Leadership again.
@ Phil
I may be getting my terminology wrong. The chap who was the OC of our neighbouring TA infantry unit was an ex-CSM from the infantry who had been commissioned. I didn’t mean TA volunteer officers (or officer candidates.)
” As for drill nights they are really just a remember you’re in the TA, do some phys, prepare for the next weekend thing a waste of effort to inspect them.”
So that apparent lack of purpose I perceived on TA drill nights wasn’t just me not understanding what was happening but a real lack of purpose. And I suppose there is limited scope really for lectures or demonstrations isn’t there? In your trade most work in the NHS so that is on the job training. RLC and RE can’t do much. As for infantry well fieldcraft is best taught in the field I suppose. And Signals has been cut right back and has changed so much in character that they can’t do much either. Um. So no scope at all for making “drill night” a more, um, “substantial” affair? I know we used keep more cadets because of having regular weekends away and week’s camps than we did for parade nights. But we were playing at it. I suppose a question is how much reminding does a TA bod need for it to hit home that he is in part of the army? That will vary from person to person; from well rounded individual to Walt.
“If you look at all the documents and plans they are awesome.”
Sounds just like cadets.
@ Phil
I was always surprised by how much “work” went on at TAC (I will use your acronym) during the week.
Perhaps what is needed is for the TA to be put on the same footing as the RNR. Fewer better equipped centres that entail a bit of travel. The RNR is a lot smaller than TA. No so that won’t work………
Again I think we need to look at how allies do it. And look at their volunteer specialists. Are they more professional? Fitter? More committed? If so why? Could there even be a failing in society as whole? Has, and I will use this word loosely, our sense of our patriotism declined? Do Norwegians turn up for home guard training out of a sense of national pride that is more widespread in Norwegian society?
Are plans to expand the TA folly? Should we just keep the bits that work such as the field hospitals or the “semi-professional” units like 21/23 SAS or 4 PARA and scrap the rest and use the money for the regulars?
Yeah you can go for a commission any time in the TA. It’s more like the US OCS scheme. But there is also the no doubt by now renamed DETAPO scheme which has or had 5 modules.
Drill nights are odd things. I know many units try and make them interesting but there’s just not much scope as you say to do more than phys, admin and maybe a repetitive lecture. I’ve always thought of them more as a conduit for organising and preparing for weekends and getting the blokes in and going through admin and problems and course bookings etc.
It’s noticeable that the difference with the TA and some UOTC units is that 2 hours on a weeknight is fairly restricting, but 4 hours on a Wednesday afternoon allows a lot more scope for real training. Not realistic for the TA of course, but it’s indicative of how longer periods of training are far more useful than the same time split into evening 2 hour chunks.
I did mention this before, but I did suggest drill halls were less bases for TA units, and more like drop in centres for individual training. You lose some of the unit feel, but you build more of this on camps and weekends anyway. I know nothing about the RNR, but perhaps someone could enlighten us further?
4 PARA semi professional? I know plenty of folk from it and whilst they have a good ethos and are generally not screamers they’re not semi professional either. They’re not much different from any good TA unit which has fostered and maintained a good unit identity and high standards.
As for TACs. There’s a balance, spread them out and your travel budget sky rockets and your recruiting footprint gets smaller. Have too many and they become inefficient. But then it depends on the unit. I believe that there could be excellent scope in getting heads together and having a TA wing in a community building jointly funded and maintained. Or turning over parts of TACs to more community functions and charging thereby cost sharing and bringing the TA more into public life. Couple of strong rooms for kit and you’re good. Can probably even have an armoury with today’s remote alarm systems and sensors.
Quick update on the nebulous future army
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20049
I was just watching the news it showed TA operating Challenger 2′s?
@ Phil
4PARA? I just meant better than average. For all those reasons you say.
We have 4 TACs locally. Our nearest one is in mothballs. I am told there are reasons why it hasn’t been disposed of, but can’t say why. In the conurbation to my immediate east there are three about 2 to 3 miles apart. Two are late 40s/early 50 buildings and cost a fortune to maintain. And the other is a newish smaller building. The RFCA would love to loose both the older buildings and build one new centre. Their compromise position is to house two units at one of the older buildings. But there isn’t space for two units at the better older building apparently, and I am lead to believe their is pressure to keep the building for historical reasons which is another reason against a new centre. I find that hard to believe but my sources are good.
As for having TA centres in other buildings or allowing community use. I could see the former working if it was say a police station or a post office building or some other governmental building. But apart from those it is a non-starter because of security. And the same for letting the community in to share facilities. It will never happen under the current RFCA set up and with the apparent threat being terrorism. One off uses yes. But actually sharing no way. And I speak as somebody who was a committee member and chairmen of Sea Cadet unit that was situated within a TA centre. It was a freaking nightmare. The TA, the soldiery, great. The RFCA? Bunch of utter tossers.
My old RFCA used to let the TAC out to community groups on a weekly basis. Karate, Scouts, etc etc. It also has an armoury and stores. Worked a charm. I don’t know if they charge for how much but there’s always something going on in there.
RE: Think Defence says:
June 19, 2012 at 12:26 and the link to Independent
If there is any accuracy in being mobilised for 2-3 years at a time, that is bringing the short service contract back, but calling it TA
- very confusing, but it is only a short newspaper piece, quickly put together
Think you’re reading it wrong. They mean I think the AF can furnish force elements for 2-3 years of medium operations.
@ TD – re: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20049
remember talking to Jim or Trouble on the Warships1 forum, can’t remember which, and he talked about having worked with french forces and considered to be the total capability to be a bit of a paper tiger.
because the very capable pointy bits masked a lot of second rate forces.
the parallel is worrying.
@ Phil
I have attended one off events at TA centres through out the city. Perhaps our situation was different in that our building was actually in the grounds and that put some strain on the relationship. We used to have events as long as they were unit related such as firework parties. We wouldn’t have dared say to have a car wash event or opened up for a car boot even though our water build was doubled because we paid half the drainage. It was difficult. Gate management was a big issue. The TA and ACF were buggers for leaving the gate open and we would get the blame.
Yeah I guess it depends on local arrangements and how miserable the RFCAs are. My current TAC does nothing of the sort and it’s in the same RFCA. Personally where it can be done I think it should be. As cadets we shared our hut with the RBL, Scouts and WI!
Hi Jedi,
If you abolish conscription (which units, btw, after the Algeria experience, can’t [by now should be in the past tense] be deployed outside of France anyway, except in a declared major war), then the last few cohorts going through would not be very motivated… neither would their trainers be, as they are already focussed onto the next phase
- so I would not worry too much about the French split: they have not only an external intervention force, but an internal one as well, within the Gendarmerie (and I am not talking about CRS for riots)
“Should we just keep the bits that work such as… or the “semi-professional” units like 21/23 SAS…”
– By all accounts 21/23 SAS are a long way from being semi-professional. In the sense of when some boring training weekend comes up, almost nobody shows up. But when it comes to shooting stuff, blowing stuff up, or going on a weekend course to do something exciting almost the whole lot arrive, accompanied by varied caches of the latest gucci kit bought off the civilian market.
i believe it was a more fundamental problem re training and equipment, but no doubt conscription played a part.
tho this was only a few years ago.
Chris B said “But when it comes to shooting stuff, blowing stuff up, or going on a weekend course to do something exciting almost the whole lot arrive, accompanied by varied caches of the latest gucci kit bought off the civilian market.”
I am struggling to see what is wrong with that!
I had better qualify that. Those who get through selection aren’t really going to be the type to do boring are they?
As long as they pass muster that is all that matters.
21/23 aren’t looked upon very well by 22. And to be fair they were units intended for very different roles. I don’t know what 21/23 SAS are supposed to actually do these days but in Afghan they are being used more like SSFG than SAS.
21/23 aren’t looked upon very well by 22. And to be fair they were units intended for very different roles. I don’t know what 21/23 SAS are supposed to actually do these days but in Afghan they are being used more like SSFG than SAS.
In addition, I am reading, although they are from the same obvious source, that the AF in the new Army is meant for operations lasting 2-3 years and I am wondering if the Army has no intention of conducting anything longer than 4-5 years? In my mind that would undermine the whole Adaptable Force thing, you know, where you adapt as you have no idea what you’ll be doing.
Further thoughts are that if the model was an enduring never ending operation then you’d need 4 AF Bdes to meet such a model so that they’d mobilise once every 5 years. You’d have the 3 RF bdes going through, 2 AF bdes, and then the 3 RF bde (tour intervals are 2 years for regulars) and the second tranche of 2 AF bdes.
So you’d then have 4 AF Bdes able to be mobilised for enduring operations, one AF to augment and 1 for overseas and 1 for ceremonial (aka London District).
Phil said “Afghan they are being used more like SSFG than SAS.”
But if they are useful, turn up, and meet fitness standards does it matter? I don’t know much about them. But I always imagined they were more for back up and support than the “real deal”. Are they better motivated and more “professional” than typical TA units? If so they must be doing something right. Hopefully that is more to do with doing the job, and not the cap badge.
“But if they are useful, turn up, and meet fitness standards does it matter?”
– I’ve heard the argument put roughly like this by an ex-22; if it only takes few weekend jaunts to keep someone up to the standard required by the SAS, then surely the regular infantry could fufill the requirement and then some?
Delivered with a rather large dollop of sarcasm.
I don’t know much about them either. I know a few folk who have done TA selection and I met a few out in Afghan but that’s it. From what I know they occupy a strange limbo where they aren’t really TA (the commitment is almost full time) but they aren’t regular either.
Also, a big problem I have personally noticed with units like any airborne TA unit or RMR or TA SAS is that they tend to attract people who want to pass the course, the same types who do ultra marathons and so on. They have no interest in the military side of things other than doing the phys and completing the physical challenges. They are welcomed with open arms as fit motivated individuals but they have ZERO intention of staying once they’ve passed – they’re then off running across the Sahara on their hands.
Would be interesting to take stock of where we got to, with the Future of the Army thread
- some things could be done with a very quick rewind, as announcements should be out before too long (Parliament going off to the pastures green)
- some things we did not get to at all, in depth (like tactical comms etc)
@Chris.B, @Phil: my very limited experience of ppl in 21 is that they a) worked part time as it was impossible to meet the training requirement while working full time b) they were very Army-barmy and c) their career was often cut short by injury. I did know one that transferred to R Squadron as it was then, which might indicate 22′s attitude wasn’t necessarily as negative as sometimes painted.
@ Chris B
Some RM refer to the RMR as the “Rubber Daggers” so I understand what he is saying.
@ Phil
So we are no further forward then?
How do we “incentivize” the suitable to join then?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-plan-to-split-army-into-two-forces-7858842.html
More on the new structure of the army, focusing on the role of special forces. One interesting piece of information is that Gurkhas who formed reinforcement companies are getting the chop as are the battalions they were part of.
@tjposhea
Another piece of interesting information from the “Independent article seems to be that the Airborne Brigade (Do they mean Air Assault?) will have Warrior vehicles. Or have I got that entirely wrong and is it a case of poor grammmar/sentence structure/word order by the journalist concerned. One expects the highest standards from papers such as the “Independent” but one never knows nowadays. Are the Warriors perhaps to equip the Armoured Infantry units in the Armoured Brigades? Here is the extract. See what you think.
“The “Reaction” force, according to confidential documents, will be comprised of three armoured brigades, each with a tank regiment, two infantry regiments and an airborne brigade, commanded by a major general and armed with two regiments of Apache helicopter gunships and Warrior fighting vehicles.”
I imagine the warriors are spoken about in relation to the ‘Reaction Forces’ three armoured brigades. Although they maybe looking to experiment with parachuting warriors, like the russians do. Although the likely hood of this is small, so i can only assume they will be for the armoured infantry in the armoured brigades.
The term ‘airborne’ keeps being used by the media. It must mean that the army have either realised they are unable to have an air assault brigade or they see the need for more specialised troops in a smaller army. The article also mentions an expanding role for special forces, the airborne forces easily make up the core of 22 and they are the SFSG (1PARA) . The creation of a fully fledged airborne brigade may be looking to keep the size of special forces the same, one of the arguments for keeping a large army, is that it provides a pool large enough to find soldiers capable of passing UKSF selection. The parachute regiment and airborne forces have always provided over 50 percent of these men establishing them in a proper brigade will see more men step up to take p company and in turn UKSF selection.
“Are the Warriors perhaps to equip the Armoured Infantry units in the Armoured Brigades? Here is the extract. See what you think.”
I think its journalists not knowing what they are talking about. I would hazard a guess that there will be no Warriors 16X. And again, the media are using a title “airborne” which means something to us but means soldiers from the sky to them whether or not its parachuting, TALO or helicopter assault. Airborne would be a better title though unless its going to drop to just II and III PARA then it should be 16 Parachute Brigade again.
It is looking like the open ended enduring model is dead. The senior officer quoted does have a point about it being a failure of strategy but the question is (a) will this nudge politicians into making sure the job is done properly first time or more likely sadly (b) the politicians try to do something on the cheap and ignore the structural limitations of the Army. Something the brass will have been worrying about.
@tjposhea and Phil
I agree with what both of you say. The Warrior seems a most inappropiate vehicle for Airborne/Airmobile/Air Assault forces. Far too heavy. Now, the CVR(T)2 family. That would be far more suitable!
Sticking with 22 SAS for a minute and the Independent article linked above;
“….want to expand the type of combat carried out by the SAS and the SBS….”
I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to hear that. One of the most consistent complaints that seems to come from “ex-them” is people trying to use them as some kind of shock troops and not as a high value asset that is used sparingly or not at all if a suitable role cannot be found.
Damn them!
If the powers that be want to take highly trained, expensive, professional fighting men and put them in a C130 and crash it into the middle of an enemy country in the midst of a defended air base then that’s just what they’ll bloody well do!
Re: shock troops
Isn’t that why SF have 1PARA call to provide the extra manpower for those missions just outside typical SF work?
All very well expanding SF’s work load but where are the extra C17s to move them? What about bringing Albion back on stream? Or are these lot supposed go via Ryan Air, Interail pass, or in a minibus? Mobility doesn’t come cheap. Tomorrow won’t be like Afghanistan where they can just fly into theatre, jump in a helicopter, and go.
Let me see now. We can’t seem to get a handle on how we can expand the TA; even though we seem to understand the problems. And the SF part of the new plan seems shaky. At least the middle bit is OK with one of us!!!
I am going to sit on my hands now until something more concrete appears from the MoD.
I think the line of thinking goes something along the lines of; “Well, they spend a lot of time shooting on ranges. Arguably twice as accurate as your average soldier. Ergo, following the ‘Hoon Theorum’, a unit of 60 SAS is worth 120 normal soldiers. Send them in!”
Which is of course a great way of getting 60 expensively trained, highly motivated soldiers killed for little appreciable benefit.
As for the SFSG, there’s naturally quite a lot of hush, hush surrounding just what exactly it is they do. As far as I can tell it’s a bit like the old Lynx and the Apache deal, where “them” are supposed to be the Lynx (find the enemy) and 1 PARA is the Apache (drop in to visit them in them middle of the night. Without cookies). At least in the Afghan theatre. God knows what they’re supposed to do in a general dust up.
Now did anyone see on the news about the latest attempt by Krazy Kirchner to save her Presidency?
Is she hiding with Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London?
As for SF Group. Yep that is what I understand what they do.
She should be so lucky. Apparently she tried to give Cameron an envelope at the G20 summit with a whole bunch of papers in it detailing some UN resolutions in favour of “Las Malvinas” or something. Stupid bint. I’d just love to see Cameron head butt her. Now that would be a vote winner.
@Chris.B: that would hardly slow her down. Looking her up and down, then muttering something about how even the best plastic surgeons can’t work that sort of miracles might be more effective
I wonder/worry that the reference to ““The “Reaction” force, according to confidential documents, will be comprised of three armoured brigades, each with a tank regiment, two infantry regiments and an airborne brigade, commanded by a major general and armed with two regiments of Apache helicopter gunships and Warrior fighting vehicles…” in the Independent article is code to mean that we will only have enough support helicopter’s to move the airborne brigade. Also I admit to being a bit clueless on the Army front, but how are they going to work in the Royal Artillery into the Reaction forces, presumably no reaction force should be deployed without the ability to mass indirect fire and operate its own air defence?
Don’t know mate I think we’ve squeezed all we can out of the leaks. Now to wait.
Phil, agreed, it is almost turning into misinformation when uninformed press starts to rehash the releases
- anyone know when the full release of the recommendations is due (I take it they will release the version where only recommendations taken up are included)?
No idea. I don’t think this is a recommendation I think it’s the settled plan. CGS refers to it as happening in his 11 June speech. And Carter said in an interview on Armynet that it’s been signed off internally since May. I think they are now in the watch the politicians pull it apart for political gain phase.
Just letting you guys know.
HMAS Choules (ex Largs Bay) has broken down out here. The ship was on its way from Sydney to the Army exercise area at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland when one (of 6) main power transformers failed cutting ships speed by a stated 50% and causing a return to Sydney.
If the rumour in the Australian newspaper this morning is correct RFA ships engineers have previously reported overheating in both transformers and propulsion motots of Bay class vessels.
Not ruch a bargain afterall?
Does raise a few questions when a single power transformer failure can effectively cripple the ship.
Hi Johnno, sure does
“Not ruch a bargain afterall?
Does raise a few questions when a single power transformer failure can effectively cripple the ship.”
- no RN ship (other than one on charter) can operate in ice
- I wonder how many are unsuited for hot climates (I guess everything else than an engine arrangement can be fixed afterwards)
Sold as is! Sold as is!