Future Defence Review - What does it mean for the Gunners?

Discussion in 'Gunners' started by pensionpointer, Nov 24, 2009.

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. So what do we think any forthcoming Defence/Security Review may hold in store for the Royal Regiment? Less guns, no air defence and more UAVs? Or do you think we can survive relatively unscathed?

    Thoughts on a postcard!


  2. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    UAV's to the RAF or AAC
    Less AS90
    More Light Gun
    No toys

    only joking, what would I know :D
  3. In a parochial sense, I suspect that the moves towards reconstitution of 16 and 3 Bdes as a standing rapid reaction force will mean the loss of the TA regiment that supports 7 and 29. There's no way that the TA could provide WER pax at 72 hrs NTM for example.

    In more general terms: are we considering here the infamous, 'Treasury led' review or the alternative, 'how do we structure an armed forces which will allow us to conclude current ops positively and let us deal confidently and competently with whatever the future may hold', type?
  4. Where did you hear that?

    That information is supposed to be Top Secret! :D
  5. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    All joking aside, we discussed UAV's a while ago, from a laymans perspective (ie nothing more complex than a Shovel RE) it just seems daft that the RAF are off doing their Predator/Reaper and possibly Mantis thing whilst the RN do their own thing and the RA do their thing as well, all in delightfull isolation, all using different air vehicles, all using different sensors and all using different ground control stations.

    Is it likely that Watchkeeper and say a Reaper/Mantis would operate from the same airhead, image the same ground and possibly even fire at the same targets (except of course Watchkeeper will the wheeziest of the two)

    I am confused !!

    edited to add

    can you explian why is it daft to mix say an AS90 and Light Gun in the same Regt, I think I could work out a semi sane reason but always good to hear from someone who actually knows :D
  6. Is it likely that Watchkeeper and say a Reaper/Mantis would operate from the same airhead, image the same ground and possibly even fire at the same targets (except of course Watchkeeper will the wheeziest of the two)

    The big difference is that WK belongs to the Ground Component Commander, ie Brigade Commander, Reaper etc belong to the higher formation command. So when Battle Group A asks for UAV cover he will get WK, it will stay with him for as long as required, and will not suddenly dissapear on some higher level strategic task and indeed he will get it, some far off US SF mission will not take priority.

    WK is not weaponised, was never designed to be, but could possibly be! Why carry a couple of missiles when at the press of a button a Bty of AS-90 gives the observed tgt a bad day!
  7. I think the current argument is that we need a 155 system to deliver in-bound precision munitions. In addition we don't have enough light gun to deliver rounds for training and 155 rounds are currently cheaper.


  8. msr

    msr LE

    I think BATUS is moving towards a more Afghan stylee scenario, so expect to see Lt Gun out there.

  9. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    But isnt that a rather inward looking argument, you just make sure you have enough to cover contingent tasks or provide UAV capability lower down the food chain if you really want to gaurantee availability (isnt that what Desert Hawk does??)

    In fact, doesnt having little pockets of capability actually contribute to less being available in the wider scheme of things

    If WK is weaponised won't it be a bit wheezy and only able to carry a very small weapon load, in answer to your 'why' response, will WK operate beyond the range of AS90?

    Hope you lot don't mind me asking bone questions :D
  10. Why can't they use AS90 in the hot sandy places? it gives much longer range and bigger bangs!

    If they go for more light guns would that mean keep TA light gunners to reinforce regular units (especially on enduring ops)?
  11. msr

    msr LE

    Too big, too heavy, not air-portable and the ammunition resupply would be horrendous.

  12. ie reverse last year's decision :?

    I know it has been done to death before, but now that UAVs have developed into more than just artillery spotters, why is RA the army's UAV operator?

    See also your point 7.

    I'm intrigued why you think that the Royal Regiment of Artillery should be the army's battlespace management unit?
  13. Army ASM and hence BM has always been the business of AD HQs. They have the structures, resources and "plugs" in the right places. They are now beginning to get the tools to enable them to do this properly. 16 Regt are subordinate to Jt GBAD HQ and will take command of the JAPPLE/LEAPP next year. They contribute to the integration of joint effects along with their field brethren - who would you suggest provide BM? Are you sure you are not confusing this with BSM?


  14. Everything Lait has posted and a few more.

    1) Career stream FAC's. How much money and training goes in FAC's for them to move on after one tour?
    I know the party line is that its a 3 year stint, yes of course it is(sarcasm)
    2) Ref the above- a good FAC can run your ASM more effectively than some rupert thats been taught it in a
    3) State Joint Fires and actually mean it. Too many cold war doctraine BC's kicking about, that think Gun's
    Gun's Gun's Gun's.The RA have grabbed Joint Fires by the scruff of the neck,it's a massive battle winning
    asset.It can be used so much more effectively if the ''long screwdriver'' was left at Larkhill, and you used
    ''mission command'' as your phrase instead ''well its my trainset I'm the BC''
    4) Bin AD, do I need to say any more on that?
  15. That's fine until the Taliban get their own UAVs or someone with an Armed heli capability kicks off.

    Thanks for your valuable input though.