5 Year Tours

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Spanish_Dave, Jan 10, 2010.

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. Spanish_Dave

    Spanish_Dave LE Good Egg (charities)

  2. Five year "tours" would be a terrible idea for combat troops, but I don't see a problem with sending HQ staff out for that long. If they're based in the major camps, it will be no different from deploying for that length of time to a country that isn't 'at war'.
  3. Apart from not being able to leave the camp without FP and spending half a decade with a shite standard of life, I agree completely.
  4. It may only be a rumour but I have heard that people outside of 'combat troops' may have families, and indeed may even be married.

    Unless they're suggesting building quarters in Afghan, which is possibly the craziest idea I've ever heard.
  5. What about the booze then !!!!

  6. There are plenty of embassies where leaving the compound is a big deal. As for a sh*t standard of life, many American camps put good hotels to shame.
  7. Not to mention the odd rocketing.
  8. How many members with families would discharge altogether, rather than try to contend with such a prospect? (cue FSJ appearing and telling everyone to cop it sweet)
  9. I would have loved a 5 year tour in BFG in the 80s, I only managed 4 1/2 years at Munsterlager and 2 drying out sessions at Rinteln
  10. Make it an accompanied posting.
    Just when you think things can't get any worse, "what time dya call this then. Out all night playing soldiers. And don't you come near me with THAT until it's washed". :D
  11. The article is utter nonsense. The 912 posts refer to the attempt to recruit individuals who would repeatedly deploy to Afghanistan in key positions as Afghan specialists. They would rotate 6-12 months or more frequently and they would return to the same jobs in DC etc when not in theatre. The programme is known as "Afghan Hands" and its uptake has not been too well received by those that think it will adversely reflect their careers. It is a pet project of Gen McCrystal and the CJCS. The Yanks might be mad but 5 years is overstepping it!
  12. How are we ever going to win a war with that attitude? If 5 year tours are needed to ensure consistency, then they need to happen.

    My point is that combat troops literally cannot operate for 5 years straight. An officer in a comfy HQ post can.
  13. BAH! It was good enough during t'war! Long-haired layabouts these days...
  14. I think that's the issue, rather than any genuine operational problem. You'd have to recruit volunteers, boost their pay and guarantee them leave.
  15. We're probably not going to, however long the tours are.

    I'd imagine that putting tours up to 5 years will end the problems with the Defence budget in a couple of hours though, because we'd be down to a couple of the best equipped battlegroups in the world as quickly as JPA can be booted up.

    We may have had long 'tours' in the 1940s and 50s when it just wasn't practical to have roulemonts every 6 months, but these days the chances of someone volunteering to do a 5 year tour are practically zero (there'll always be some who will) and the chances of anyone staying in the Army if they're ordered to do it are probably even less.

    Besides which, you'd do one tour and be entitled to almost 30 weeks of post op leave when you got back, your career will be four years behind your peers (you'll probably have missed at least one career course of some form in that time) and you'd probably need a personal AGC det to sort your admin out for you.