19 regt fst teams

Discussion in 'Gunners' started by uavgunner, Mar 7, 2007.

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. hey all

    im getting threaders with the uav role and since the reginent is loseing its mimi uav capabilty and i loath tactical uavs i was thinking about a transfer to 19.

    I spoke to one of your officers and a bdr on ex kush dragon and they told mr that they are keeping the fst concept after herrick and are always a bit thin on the ground for op acks and could get a course and a place on a team ok.

    can any of the lads next door give me a heads up

    cheers uav gunner
  2. I'll do it.

    The entire RA Tac Gp plot will be converted to FST by 2009. We are looking at using Op HERRICK PDT as a vehicle to achieve this in the short term, while other mechanisms are put in place to sustain the concept i.e. allowing JNCOs at L3 to go either 'FAC/JTAC' route or Indirect route. Regardless, both streams will get a fair crack at being the 'Ack' in due course i.e. by attending OPA L4 etc. We need to do this in order to 'own' the entire FST package and so avoid stripping FR (predominantly) of their FACs - they are understandably slightly threaders with the whole thing right now! :)

    As for transferring - your UAV background is ideal and you should seek to speak to 19 Regt RA ASAP after Op HERRICK 7 and get yourself brought on board. After that, as long as you are fit, self-starting and highly motivated, you will have no problems.

    I would also add that every single Tac Gp is going this way, so don't forget 7 (Para) RHA, 29 Cdo Regt RA and 4/73 Bty RA if you are interested in this sort of thing.

    Good luck - feel free to fire any more questions my way via PM is required.
  3. Proximo

    Some time ago in The Gunner, there was an article refering to Joint Effect Teams. Are these the same as the Fire Support Teams? If not, what is the difference.
  4. Joint Effects Teams (a more accurate description IMHO) was the term that 7 (Para) RHA gave to the concept now known widely as FSTs. In many ways, I think we should have kept it, if only because they were just left to get on with the entire construct!
  5. cheers guys
  6. Joint Effects brings together Non-kinetic and kinetic activities to have effects on the Target, so not really the term for what you are after. Is not Joint Fires the title of choice?
  7. They were called FST's as we stole the concept off the yanks with 148 Bty leading the way then it was driven by 29.

    However we are trying to do it with about the third of the manpower that the Americans use!
  8. Just for the record, IIRC when the yanks created FISTs in the '70s they took the MFC manpower cover from the infantry (and armor?), in fact I think they may have taken actual bodies when they kicked off.

    I believe Ft Sill has published the full set of Field Arty Journal online and there's bound to be an article in there if you want to check. I think FIST is a much better (punchier) term but I guess copying the yanks is out of order (but FDC, FSCC crept in).
  9. Yes - Joint Fires is the 'term of choice'.

    I understand the difference between kinetic and non-kinetic.

    However, if an FST also incorporates LEWT capability...?

    Just food for thought really.
  10. No - they are called FSTs due to a massive bunfight between the services - long story and very dull.

    Wouldn't disagree with your idea that 29 Cdo have always been up to this sort of thing - not sure they have always 'done it' the way things are being done right now, however - in fact, I know they aren't.
  11. And in order to forestall the inevitable, I'm not casting asperstions on any specific Regiments - just answering UAV's question and stating some truisms.

    Thank you.
  12. Do LEWT teams have an offensive capability? (I don't know)
    If so then yes it might be joint effects but really joint effects non-kinetic covers the whole gambit of IO.
  13. UAV,

    Why not transfer to 47 and stay with MUAV? 47 will need experienced operators.


  14. Yeah I'm with you - depends on exactly where you draw the boundary I suppose? For example, an FST using a GR7 to do a LL show of force is having a non-kinetic effect...

    ...ho hum. This sort of thing is decided by far smarter minds than mine own! :D