CVF and Carrier Strike thread

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I didn't think that it was even as many as that; ISTR that we fired off a significant chunk of them in both 2002 and 2003.
Original buy was, from memory, something like 64 (the integration was a big cost) - we used some in Kosovo in 1999 IIRC, and more in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more again in Libya.

The missiles - while not cheap - have become less expensive and are relatively easy to restock, it's the infrastructure to be able to plan and target missions that was the hard and expensive part.
 

lert

LE
Conscious that this is the CVF and Carrier Strike thread, and that @Yokel, will be along to tell us all off, I'm always slightly amised by the orthodoxy that the current regimental structure for the Infantry is wrong.

I have no dog in this fight nor axe to grind. Having said that, I accept that there is a great deal wrong with the Army including the Infantry. Undermanning, lack of capability, poorly thought out doctrine to call out a few. But perhaps I could why that is the fault of the current regimental system. It's true that there is no link to the old County Regiments but what would another re-structure solve? What would be better and why? Why do we need less regular Foot Guard battalions if we accept they spend relatively little time guarding feet?

I suppose what I'm saying is "Show working".
 
Conscious that this is the CVF and Carrier Strike thread, and that @Yokel, will be along to tell us all off, I'm always slightly amised by the orthodoxy that the current regimental structure for the Infantry is wrong.

I have no dog in this fight nor axe to grind. Having said that, I accept that there is a great deal wrong with the Army including the Infantry. Undermanning, lack of capability, poorly thought out doctrine to call out a few. But perhaps I could why that is the fault of the current regimental system. It's true that there is no link to the old County Regiments but what would another re-structure solve? What would be better and why? Why do we need less regular Foot Guard battalions if we accept they spend relatively little time guarding feet?

I suppose what I'm saying is "Show working".
The idea is that rather than have say 16 cap badge formations that are all under-strength, you could have 12 administrative formations that are fully manned... And that you would balance leave, sickness, turnover and casualties by cross-posting the relevant ranks and officers between formations as required...

Counter argument is that tradition, history and continuity among the same group of men colleagues (musn't assume gender) build morale. esprit de corps, and a unit that fights better....
 
Last edited:
Hasn't really worked for the Army...
. . . and the term 'Strike' has been around since at least 2001.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Conscious that this is the CVF and Carrier Strike thread, and that @Yokel, will be along to tell us all off, I'm always slightly amised by the orthodoxy that the current regimental structure for the Infantry is wrong.

I have no dog in this fight nor axe to grind. Having said that, I accept that there is a great deal wrong with the Army including the Infantry. Undermanning, lack of capability, poorly thought out doctrine to call out a few. But perhaps I could why that is the fault of the current regimental system. It's true that there is no link to the old County Regiments but what would another re-structure solve? What would be better and why? Why do we need less regular Foot Guard battalions if we accept they spend relatively little time guarding feet?

I suppose what I'm saying is "Show working".
A good example of how it doesn't work currently, is that a fully-recruited operational battalion of the RRF was sacrificed iot maintain 5 regular battalions in the RRS, thereby attempting to preserve the A and SH. As it was, this very under-recruited unit was then subsequently reduced to a non-operational Incremental Company carrying out PDs in Edinburgh.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Mattb

LE
The idea is that rather than have say 16 cap badge formations that are all under-strength, you could have 12 administrative formations that are fully manned... And that you would balance leave, sickness, turnover and casualties by cross-posting the relevant ranks and officers between formations as required...

Counter argument is that tradition, history and continuity among the same group of men colleagues (musn't assume gender) build morale. esprit de corps, and a unit that fights better....
Cynical hat firmly on:

If you have 4 units which are supposed to have 500 people in each, and actually only have around 75% manning for various reasons then if you combine them into 3 x 500 person units, you'll now have a requirement for 1,500 people.

That requirement will dictate future training, recruitment, etc - and ten-twenty years later the same manning issues that you had before will mean that you now only have 1175-odd people... and the almagamation carries on ad infinatum.

Given that we've had a few rounds of regimental re-organisations and infantry battalions still aren't fully-manned, my point is probably not an unfair one.
 
Cynical hat firmly on:

If you have 4 units which are supposed to have 500 people in each, and actually only have around 75% manning for various reasons then if you combine them into 3 x 500 person units, you'll now have a requirement for 1,500 people.

That requirement will dictate future training, recruitment, etc - and ten-twenty years later the same manning issues that you had before will mean that you now only have 1175-odd people... and the almagamation carries on ad infinatum.

Given that we've had a few rounds of regimental re-organisations and infantry battalions still aren't fully-manned, my point is probably not an unfair one.
To be fair the whole concept is based on the idea that you can recruit and train sufficient new faces to meet churn, turnover and losses... When you have Capita wielding the recruiting net and 80% attrition in phase 1 training, that assumption may require a bit of work....
 
Conscious that this is the CVF and Carrier Strike thread, and that @Yokel, will be along to tell us all off, I'm always slightly amised by the orthodoxy that the current regimental structure for the Infantry is wrong.

I have no dog in this fight nor axe to grind. Having said that, I accept that there is a great deal wrong with the Army including the Infantry. Undermanning, lack of capability, poorly thought out doctrine to call out a few. But perhaps I could why that is the fault of the current regimental system. It's true that there is no link to the old County Regiments but what would another re-structure solve? What would be better and why? Why do we need less regular Foot Guard battalions if we accept they spend relatively little time guarding feet?

I suppose what I'm saying is "Show working".
I think the problem might be described not so much in Operational Capability terms, but more in behaviours. As an example, recruitment should be done on a pan-Army basis, and certain Infantry Divisions being allocated different areas of the country to recruit in. However, if Inf Regt A (lets call them the Royal Regiment of Loamshires) puts together a "black economy" of recruiting teams and goes recruiting in Blankshire, suddenly the Blankshires (1st mobile foot) are short of "their" recruits, so they put together a team to go recruit elsewhere. That game can then be played ad infinitum - if you've got a regimental link to the BLANKS but live in the LOAMS recruiting area, who is "supposed" to have you?

In short, if everyone behaved, and it was all fine, I imagine the Regimental system would be an unmitigated positive force for the Moral Component. However, there is lots of evidence (use of SharePoint will provide examples) where Regimental preservation is placed above the OC requirements of the Army, or the Country.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The idea is that rather than have say 16 cap badge formations that are all under-strength, you could have 12 administrative formations that are fully manned... And that you would balance leave, sickness, turnover and casualties by cross-posting the relevant ranks and officers between formations as required...

Counter argument is that tradition, history and continuity among the same group of men colleagues (musn't assume gender) build morale. esprit de corps, and a unit that fights better....
Actually I believe the real counter argument is that it works until the next round of cutbacks and "voluntary" (but pre-pension increment date,) redundancies.

Which, to my astonishment, is not something in which politicians partake.
 
I think the problem might be described not so much in Operational Capability terms, but more in behaviours. As an example, recruitment should be done on a pan-Army basis, and certain Infantry Divisions being allocated different areas of the country to recruit in. However, if Inf Regt A (lets call them the Royal Regiment of Loamshires) puts together a "black economy" of recruiting teams and goes recruiting in Blankshire, suddenly the Blankshires (1st mobile foot) are short of "their" recruits, so they put together a team to go recruit elsewhere. That game can then be played ad infinitum - if you've got a regimental link to the BLANKS but live in the LOAMS recruiting area, who is "supposed" to have you?

In short, if everyone behaved, and it was all fine, I imagine the Regimental system would be an unmitigated positive force for the Moral Component. However, there is lots of evidence (use of SharePoint will provide examples) where Regimental preservation is placed above the OC requirements of the Army, or the Country.
The Regimental system is dead on its arrse; all that remains is to create a phoenix to rise up out of the ashes. The next SDSR (or whatever it is called this week) cannot be a capbadge preservation exercise.
 
The Regimental system is dead on its arrse; all that remains is to create a phoenix to rise up out of the ashes. The next SDSR (or whatever it is called this week) cannot be a capbadge preservation exercise.
But it will be . . .

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Actually I believe the real counter argument is that it works until the next round of cutbacks and "voluntary" (but pre-pension increment date,) redundancies.

Which, to my astonishment, is not something in which politicians partake.
Who are top At retention and recruitment, apart from the Parachute Regiment?
 
Having listened to some of the senior leadership this morning, I am really not so sure that it will be...
Here's hoping! In attempt to steer this thread back in broadly the right direction; can any of our navy blue friends comment on story that Raleigh is full currently and that overflow Phase 1 courses are being run at BRNC. If true, that is really good news!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
I would merge all five battalions into three or four battalions of Foot Guards.
bin all the Ruritanian Regiments.

1st to nth Infantry Regiment
1st to nth Artillery Regiment
1st to nth Logistics Regiment
1st to nth Armoured Regiment

enough with My father, his father, and his fathers father were Colonels dress up Regiments.

’tradition’ = we can’t change that old boy!
 
Having listened to some of the senior leadership this morning, I am really not so sure that it will be...
Didn't the army want to chop light inf in 2010 - but political no more than x battalions and definetly not more than one from North of the wall - resulting in the half strength AF muddle
 
A big jump in the number of Specialist Infantry Battalions, standing ready to train the Native Levies, but in reality paired with Reserve units to provide a massive uplift in PSIs. Sounds much better than "binning battalions, and giving light-role infantry to the Reserves".

Move the affected Regular personnel (mostly junior) in the direction of Combat Support (Assault Pioneer? Congratulations, you'll be a Sapper soon!) and for a while, all those RD types in the Corps will be actual infantry, not "people-without-trade-quals". That alone should screw up both infantry and technical Corps training 8)

Yeah, I know, it's a silly idea...
 

wafubustard

War Hero

Latest Threads

Top