Defence Cuts..I mean re-organization!
Defence Cuts..I mean re-organization!
From the MoD website today..just a snippet from Hoon's statement to the house...
"Mr Speaker, critical to our prosecution of the war against terror are our Special Forces. We were able to announce some improvements to our Special Forces in July. We are also looking at the broader arrangements through which the Armed Forces provide support to special forces operations. One option that has emerged in this continuing work is the creation of a tri-Service “Ranger” unit, which would be dedicated to special forces support. I have decided that it would be appropriate to develop such a unit over the next few years, which would take its place alongside the other enhancements to specialist support elements of the Army.
The fourth infantry battalion reduction will therefore be found by removing the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment from the infantry structure, and using its highly trained manpower as the core of a new, tri-service ranger unit."
So only two Para Btns now in 16AA Bde! This could have far reaching consequences for the TAC AT world. Less ABEX's and MSP's. TRI SERVICE too. Imagine the scene in the local H bar when you have PARA REGT and 2 SQN RAF side by side in the same unit?
Could mean MORE AT work if this 'Ranger' Btn retains its PARA capability?
Interesting times what?
"Mr Speaker, critical to our prosecution of the war against terror are our Special Forces. We were able to announce some improvements to our Special Forces in July. We are also looking at the broader arrangements through which the Armed Forces provide support to special forces operations. One option that has emerged in this continuing work is the creation of a tri-Service “Ranger” unit, which would be dedicated to special forces support. I have decided that it would be appropriate to develop such a unit over the next few years, which would take its place alongside the other enhancements to specialist support elements of the Army.
The fourth infantry battalion reduction will therefore be found by removing the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment from the infantry structure, and using its highly trained manpower as the core of a new, tri-service ranger unit."
So only two Para Btns now in 16AA Bde! This could have far reaching consequences for the TAC AT world. Less ABEX's and MSP's. TRI SERVICE too. Imagine the scene in the local H bar when you have PARA REGT and 2 SQN RAF side by side in the same unit?
Could mean MORE AT work if this 'Ranger' Btn retains its PARA capability?
Interesting times what?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, but could Buffy be dipping his toe in the water that is Purple?
I wonder.
Tri-Service Rangers.....perhaps they could wear that bluey-black urban DPM they sell on the high street. They could be both tactical and fashionable at the same time.
I wonder.
Tri-Service Rangers.....perhaps they could wear that bluey-black urban DPM they sell on the high street. They could be both tactical and fashionable at the same time.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ye Olde Pie Shoppe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will not be long before we all go the way of one service doing all the fighting and defending on land, sea and in the air.
Will this work? Has it worked? I don't think so.
Reduce all of us to wearing black flared trousers with a camo jacket topped with a blue beret the size and shape of a dustbin lid.
Sporting a Rifle/Eagle/Anchor motif and the motto
'Responsible for all, Best at None'
History,Expertise,Honour,Pride,RIP
Will this work? Has it worked? I don't think so.
Reduce all of us to wearing black flared trousers with a camo jacket topped with a blue beret the size and shape of a dustbin lid.
Sporting a Rifle/Eagle/Anchor motif and the motto
'Responsible for all, Best at None'
History,Expertise,Honour,Pride,RIP
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the contrary, imagine all the cash and beaurocracy we would save if instead of just merging PTC/STC we went the whole hog and merged sea/air/land commands. Seems silly cutting back on strategic reserves/redundancy of front line troops when we have 3 personnel, pension, engineering, casualty reporting facilities in our command establishments. And I dont fall for that crap about loosing our service identity. Its a command. Service identity does not regularly surface in such a place. Besides, we could all have seperate sides of the bar to drink in.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my French mbga9pgf, but b*ll*cks! Yes, there may be three of each, but look at the processes of how each work and you'll see that unless there is a common process there will be no single command. The process of creating a unified way of operating is slowly, and I mean slowly taking shape. I don't believe that all three will be subsumed into some kind of conglomerate defence force in any case in this country because of the traditions that abound within the three services. Look at the Israelis, for example. A relatively clean slate towards the end of the forties (albeit with some inherited structural procedures), and although all three arms work effectively together, the Heyl Ha'Avir is still a separate entity because although the mission is similar, the method of fulfilling that mission is not the same as that of the IDF.
New or old services - all appear to find a better model than the merged triumverate.
New or old services - all appear to find a better model than the merged triumverate.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always, for 'Joint' read 'Army', and I for one have no interest in serving in such a unit. From an Air Force point of view, the Army are a pain in the @rse to work with as they are often inflexible and just don't get the way we do things. I think merging the 3 services will cause everyone to lose - The light & dark blue will have to put up with antiquated and inflexible Army practice, the Army will have to put up with our 'modern and progressive' (by comparison!) ways, and we will all have to put up with the Navy's barking traditions. We're just all too different.
16B
16B
Guest
Posts: n/a
Green,
agree with you on your points, reviewing my last rant it was rather simplistic. It does seem madness though when national strategic reserves are reduced on the front line when there possibly may be scope for reductions in redundant functions at command level... the reductions in cost from physically locating commands together alone must be worth it without including taking out the redundant services they provide. Just a suggestion, does not neccesarily mean its an intelligent one....
agree with you on your points, reviewing my last rant it was rather simplistic. It does seem madness though when national strategic reserves are reduced on the front line when there possibly may be scope for reductions in redundant functions at command level... the reductions in cost from physically locating commands together alone must be worth it without including taking out the redundant services they provide. Just a suggestion, does not neccesarily mean its an intelligent one....
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to Buff's replies to questions in the House today, I cannot believe the levels this man will sink to.
To pare us to the bone in a time of high Op tempo is one thing, but to then have the sheer bare-arsed audacity to stand in front of the House and make out that it was OUR idea, and that MoD was giving the forces what WE have asked for, is beyond the pale. In fact it is SO far beyond the pale, that light from it takes a million years to REACH the pale.
Words fail me.
...for once.
16B
To pare us to the bone in a time of high Op tempo is one thing, but to then have the sheer bare-arsed audacity to stand in front of the House and make out that it was OUR idea, and that MoD was giving the forces what WE have asked for, is beyond the pale. In fact it is SO far beyond the pale, that light from it takes a million years to REACH the pale.
Words fail me.
...for once.
16B
Good points.. we really should have a merged command in terms of manning and records / pay / supply etc. Just have the unit identity @ the sharp end where the team spirit and comradarie matter most!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mbga...
Great Scott! This could be the first time anyone's agreed with me on this forum!
Yes, I'm actually in favour of appropriate support functions being merged - the DLO being one of those good ideas which, and I may be slightly off beam here, still isn't quite living up to the ideal. I quail at the thought of absolute jointery such as co-merging the three officer training courses together. Of course, if that ever happened Cranners would be the place. Lots of green for our camo bretheren, an airfield for our lot and a damn great lighthouse for the Navy!
I'll leave this topic alone now as it's been done to death.
Back to the plot:
There are plenty of initiatives afoot to develop joint procedures, and having looked into some of them I have to say that it's a damn good idea that's long overdue. Grimweasel is absolutely correct, however, leave the sharp end alone.
Great Scott! This could be the first time anyone's agreed with me on this forum!
Yes, I'm actually in favour of appropriate support functions being merged - the DLO being one of those good ideas which, and I may be slightly off beam here, still isn't quite living up to the ideal. I quail at the thought of absolute jointery such as co-merging the three officer training courses together. Of course, if that ever happened Cranners would be the place. Lots of green for our camo bretheren, an airfield for our lot and a damn great lighthouse for the Navy!
I'll leave this topic alone now as it's been done to death.Back to the plot:
There are plenty of initiatives afoot to develop joint procedures, and having looked into some of them I have to say that it's a damn good idea that's long overdue. Grimweasel is absolutely correct, however, leave the sharp end alone.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Army are a pain in the @rse to work with as they are often inflexible and just don't get the way we do things. I think merging the 3 services will cause everyone to lose - The light & dark blue will have to put up with antiquated and inflexible Army practice, the Army will have to put up with our 'modern and progressive' (by comparison!) ways, and we will all have to put up with the Navy's barking traditions. We're just all too different.
... What I'm saying 16B is DONT KNOCK THE ARMY
But I definitely agree with you on the merging thing.
"The Government requires the Armed Forces to implement the following....."
A frequent directive from Monastery of Definance beancounters - and what happens?
The RAF rushes round making even bigger cuts and smiles at the minister like a sycophantic lapdog.
The Army announces that yes, changes will be made. One or two token gestures are made with 'more to come'..
The Navy mutters something in fluent Jackspeak and does.....nothing.
Good for the Navy! But if it all turns purple, which culture would predominate?
A frequent directive from Monastery of Definance beancounters - and what happens?
The RAF rushes round making even bigger cuts and smiles at the minister like a sycophantic lapdog.
The Army announces that yes, changes will be made. One or two token gestures are made with 'more to come'..
The Navy mutters something in fluent Jackspeak and does.....nothing.
Good for the Navy! But if it all turns purple, which culture would predominate?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps one of the reasons RAF techs aren’t keen to get involved with other people's kit is that their experience levels have been eroded over the years by contractorisation - There was a time when the RAF was responsible for entire comms networks, hardware, software etc. It was easy enough to get the JT on a remote site to reset something or put a monitor on the cct. Now its all down to Cogent, Fujitsu etc the RAF lads might not even be able to access hubs and routers!
The level of co-operation from the civvies is buried in contracts and performance schedules - you get exactly what you pay for - anything else is an extra.
It costs money and time to produce good techs and their knowledge has to be continually updated. Problem with that is treating fully trained specialists in a buoyant job market like sh!t means they leave in droves. So we contractorise, which in the short-term saves a few quid and we don't have to address the problem of how we treat our specialists - in the medium to long term we get shafted over the maintenance contracts and lose 'corporate knowledge'
The level of co-operation from the civvies is buried in contracts and performance schedules - you get exactly what you pay for - anything else is an extra.
It costs money and time to produce good techs and their knowledge has to be continually updated. Problem with that is treating fully trained specialists in a buoyant job market like sh!t means they leave in droves. So we contractorise, which in the short-term saves a few quid and we don't have to address the problem of how we treat our specialists - in the medium to long term we get shafted over the maintenance contracts and lose 'corporate knowledge'
I think the Army have debated this long and hard over many years and they have come to a good compromise. None of it was a surprise. General Jackson spoke well, candidly and with deep knowledge.
He also made a clever point. The real change is not the infantry issue but that of SF/STA (which he dwelt on for perhaps too long, and he knew it, going so far as to identify hitherto quite secretive roles and players). This is the real enhancement to capability, the success of which will depend on (inter alia) achieving Network Enabled Capability. In other words - Mr Hoon, we've done our bit now cough up the dosh to achieve something which the RAF and RN take for granted (without using the fancy terminology).
I suspect a key trigger to the timing of this initiative is BOWMAN ISD (and that of several other key projects), leaving the Army Board with the high ground and pointing the finger at the politicians (not the procurers, who can only buy what is endorsed and funded). But, that slightly outdated system is only an enabler, not the solution, and I bet General Jackson is glad he's not responsible for delivering that little baby.
He also made a clever point. The real change is not the infantry issue but that of SF/STA (which he dwelt on for perhaps too long, and he knew it, going so far as to identify hitherto quite secretive roles and players). This is the real enhancement to capability, the success of which will depend on (inter alia) achieving Network Enabled Capability. In other words - Mr Hoon, we've done our bit now cough up the dosh to achieve something which the RAF and RN take for granted (without using the fancy terminology).
I suspect a key trigger to the timing of this initiative is BOWMAN ISD (and that of several other key projects), leaving the Army Board with the high ground and pointing the finger at the politicians (not the procurers, who can only buy what is endorsed and funded). But, that slightly outdated system is only an enabler, not the solution, and I bet General Jackson is glad he's not responsible for delivering that little baby.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best contribution to the "debate" was by Annabelle Ewing of the SNP who called Buff Hoon a "backstabbing coward."
How true that is, and the majority of serving and ex-serving would agree with her.
How true that is, and the majority of serving and ex-serving would agree with her.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merging personnel, engineering and supply type things - there's a novel idea that had already been done to a great extent.
DLO = Supply and engineering.
AFPAA = Pay and pensions and will be Casualty reporting, Medal issues and introduction of Joint Personnel Administration to standardize the blunty world across the 3 of us. The people who pay the RAF may be located at Innsworth but they are not part of PTC/PMA.
Manning is a separate issue but cannot really combine unless the 3 services agree on a common way of managing their manpower - as it is the way each manages its other ranks (still the majority of each Service) are different because they are tailored to the Services differing needs. As an example - the Army appear to like their ORs to be young and fit so the opportunity to serve beyond 22 years is limited for soldiers - conversely, the RAF wishes to retain experience for longer and, therefore, has a engagement structure that allows more to stay for longer. Neither is perfect in every respect; but both are tailored for specific needs.
DLO = Supply and engineering.
AFPAA = Pay and pensions and will be Casualty reporting, Medal issues and introduction of Joint Personnel Administration to standardize the blunty world across the 3 of us. The people who pay the RAF may be located at Innsworth but they are not part of PTC/PMA.
Manning is a separate issue but cannot really combine unless the 3 services agree on a common way of managing their manpower - as it is the way each manages its other ranks (still the majority of each Service) are different because they are tailored to the Services differing needs. As an example - the Army appear to like their ORs to be young and fit so the opportunity to serve beyond 22 years is limited for soldiers - conversely, the RAF wishes to retain experience for longer and, therefore, has a engagement structure that allows more to stay for longer. Neither is perfect in every respect; but both are tailored for specific needs.