16 AA Bde and 3 Cdo Bde

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by Ancient_Hush_Puppy, Jul 1, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Looked at the Army 2020 page on Wikepedia and along with the explanation of Reaction and Adaptable Forces there was a mention of 16 AA Bde and 3 Cdo Bde pooling resources. According to Wiki, all Engr, Arty and Log Sp will be shared between the two brigades. On first look I found this hard to believe given that these bdes have different missions and methods of insertion. If true this will mean that the two brigades will never again be able to serve alongside each other as seperate entities such as in the Falklands or Iraq. Further, the affected units will have to train for airborne as well as amphibious warfare. Realistically isn't that asking too much?
  2. It is, realistically. However, I don't think reality enters into these decisions.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Would really rely on anything entered on Wikipedia.
  4. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    The falklands deployment was odd, the 2 Para Bns were attached to 3 Cdo Bde until 5 Inf bde arrived. There wasnt an airborne or AA bde in existance at the time so there wasnt any real Bde assets in the same way that there is now. To be honest if we hadnt had the Falklands (and 2 Para wouldnt have gone with 3 Cdo Bde without the perserverance of its CO) then the Parachute Regiment may have ceased to exist by now!
    There is always the option to ship both bdes by air or sea, its the actual means of landing that call for specialists. All Infantry are (or were) trained in basic air assault drills so it shouldnt be too difficult to deliver them, its the parachute stuff thats really not too easy to train too in 2 weeks. you can train inf to land from boats and even to raid, but getting them up to parachute and snow and ice standards isnt a 2 week course in my opinion hence we have the cpapbility even if its not used. As for sharing assets that could prove difficult but not insurmountable, the Falklands proved it can be done!
    Hell we even managed to take CVRT and use them usefully!
  5. No. If we need a bty to sp a high readiness bg and a Regt to sp a bde then it seems one gun Regt could sp both. Unpalatable? Very. Cdo bty and para bty in one unit. Cultural challenge ahead but other units (33 engr Regt) already do it
  6. And, we could always deploy a Sqn or indeed another Regt from the 'CS' Bde to support either if the task dictated it, it's hardly as if they all have to Parachute in or climb cliffs, the gear is too heavy.
  7. Thanks for all the posts so far. 3 Div deployed to Iraq in 2003 where 16 Bde fought alongside 3 Bde each with organic Engr, Arty, Log etc. This enabled independent operations by both bdes. Should HMG decide to follow the US in an overseas adventure and deploy 3 Div with these bdes then as a result of 2012 reductions they will not be able to conduct concurrent operations. The future Para/Cdo Arty Regt with say, 3 btys each of 6 105 mm guns can support only one of the bdes. To my knowledge 16 and 3 Bdes are the only users of this weapon system therefore no other 105 Regt could reinforce at short notice the other Bde and permit concurrent operations. To my mind this is a heck of a drawback in the scheme of things.
  8. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Yes you are apparently right but it seems that 16AA and 3 Cdo are to be kept as the Rapid RF so that whichever one is used (not always needed to deploy both) the support arms can deploy. One assumes although the MoD is a big budget that the bit to pay for 3 Cdo Bdes support arms comes from the Admiralty's share of the pot or is a seperate ringfenced means of keeping an independant RRF seperate from the day to day army and also ensuring both Paras and RM continue. There is less need to worry about the loss of an RA battery or two as they tend to cope with that a lot easier than an Inf Bn.
    Then you can also always look at the reserves, training the TA RA to field light guns in a rapid reaction force role as IRs or even as formed troops is probably smarter use of money than retaining a para trained commando battery of regulars if you are an accountant!
  9. Maybe so if you are an accountant, probably not if you are on the ground?
    Having multi roll Bty's could prove a problem, due to time constraints of the Bty staying current in both roles.

    As an aside the new RN doctrine is for an amphibious capability of one Commando group only at the moment.
  10. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    "Having multi roll Bty's could prove a problem, due to time constraints of the Bty staying current in both roles."
    Without giving away trade secrets would you like to explain why that would be difficult? Two different means of delivery in theory but as all CS would initially be air delivered by Helicopters why cant a battery be double hatted?
  11. From a Gunner point of view its quite possible, if memory serves there is only the requirement for a Battery of trained Paras for the Lead Parachute Group to deploy, after that heli landing is essentially the same for both Cdo and AA actions.

    I doubt there would be a similar sized Regt, maybe a super sized expanding by a couple of Btys but one RHQ command element might do it, not perfect, not preferable, but certainly do-able
    • Like Like x 1

  12. Only down to man hours for training/OPs, was my thinking, Will they have to remain current with jumps, (for pay purposes) dunker drills, amphib drills etc on top of thier prat camps, range days, Two lots of Bde ex's and OPs.
    I was not suggesting that they would not be capable of conducting both roles.
  13. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    There is possibly no real need to keep a whole regiment up to speed on all the skills and drills. Just keeping the basic gun bunny stuff is a battle for some units allegedly but those in a special role tend to have less difficulty recruiting or retaining personel. In fact having 3 or 4 Batteries running through a training/exercise cycle over about 4-6 years and select the troops you need to deploy from the available pool would possibly be a lot more cost effective than maintaining a regular unit. If a reg unit can do it there is little reason that a reserve cant be trained.
    If the Gunners and sigs can do it with reserves why cant the cavalry?
  14. I see you have it covered, to be honest it will be cheaper I'm sure if your thinking is to do away with Cdo/Para Btys and form from a pool as and when needed. As for the reserves issue, as IR or as a Bty? IR can be whipped into shape (IF they are not upto speed) as for a reserve Bty standing up for RRF?
  15. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    You could always mmaintain the edge with a reserve nattery on first call, an almost ever ready of the late 60's. The trrops to make up the battery can be from different areas but be the best of their location.
    I'm not saying what will happen but what could be done to make the best of the situation.
    There are always ways around the MTDs issues, look at what the 21 and 23 candidates go through and then 4 Para cant be that far behind. Yes it will rely on a certain amount of comradeship and goodwill but that has always been the strength of the TA!