With the main reason/task for the existence of the Regiment (certainly in the last 20 odd years) being defence of static, immobile Air Bases and its immediate surroundings (granted there is a small percentage that are now part of the SFSG [or whatever its latest name is]) aren't your gunners (of all educational levels) going to be VERY frustated at the task given (when they discover what it is
)? And how did all those posted to Rapier/SHORAD units reconcile with the lack of "closing with the enemy". Enemy closing on them perhaps ....
Fair questions... When I joined, (1979), I did so with the specific intention of going to II Sqn. which I did. I never guarded/defended an airfield other than Aldergrove, (which, I would suggest is a slightly different situation). My time was spent defending the Harrier Force and was done from the field and we moved quite regularly - in war we would have moved much more often.
Aggressive patrolling, (which is what Regiment field squadrons do), is quite specialized and more challenging that one might think. It's actually quite easy for a small force to infiltrate any given area so it takes a high level of skill from what is, after all, a very small force to locate the enemy. There is a lot of understanding of how an enemy works that allows Gunners to find said enemy. It's far from frustrating except when the enemy "wins".
Many who joined wanted to go to the SHORAD sqns and they often got their wish. Different kind of fighting, different kind of Gunner in many cases. I know that over on RockNet you'll find quite a clear distinction between the field Gunners and the Rapier Gunners and those field Gunners who were posted to Rapier pretty much unanimously did not like their time in SHORAD. Conversely, those Rapier Gunners who were posted to field Sqns. fairly universally seemed to dislike the experience. At that time the Regiment was somewhat divided between field/CVRT and Rapier.
I'm still a little uncertain as to why SHORAD was given to the RA and can only surmise that TPTB decided that in the currents climate the threat from LL attack by enemy fighters/bombers against airfields was slight so LLAD was no longer required. One questions the wisdom of removing the skill set for the short term threat without acceptance that sometime down the road the threat which they currently deem insignificant may again become serious...
Oh how sad it is when some, on entering civvy street just cant seem to let it go
Seldom: You make me laugh. You prattle on about how people who have left "can't let go" and how, when you retire you won't be back. I have two things to say to you. Firstly, the only difference between us is that you seem to think that because I'm no longer serving I have nothing relevant to say whereas even though you are still serving you rarely have anything relevant or intelligent to say. Secondly, please, please, if you are offered early retirement grab it ASAP so we don't need to listen to your puerile chatter any longer.
Now, trot on back to harassing your subordinates which, the consensus indicates, is the one thing you are really good at...