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

#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!

uqfegd

pp
 
#3
pensionpointer said:
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!

uqfegd

pp
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
meridian said:
UAV's to the RAF or AAC
Less AS90
More Light Gun
No toys


only joking, what would I know :D
Where did you hear that?

That information is supposed to be Top Secret! :D
 
#5
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
LAIT said:
meridian said:
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
Agree on all your wise words on UAVs, here and elsewhere.

I think (and bear in mind I am no more expert) that it's insanely stupid because the CSS bill goes through the roof (you need AS90 REME/RLC support regardless of how many you've got i.e. a workshops et al); the training bill goes from potty to almost unworkable; you lose a full 25% of your manpower just to maintaining the wretched thing in camp as it doesn't go on ops etc etc etc.

It seems to be an awfully big and expensive pill to swallow and keep down just to keep the old n' bold types in Larkhill feeling good about themselves. It seems to me that there is a definite type of Gunner officer who likes the armoured i.e. fat lifestyle that AS90 affords them.
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.

uqfegd

pp
 
#8
LAIT said:
so at least the Army can use AS90 for training at Larkhill. And the usual nonsense in BATUS of course.
I think BATUS is moving towards a more Afghan stylee scenario, so expect to see Lt Gun out there.

msr
 
#9
offhand said:
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!
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
irlsgt said:
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)?
Too big, too heavy, not air-portable and the ammunition resupply would be horrendous.

msr
 
#12
LAIT said:
2. Give all AD to the RAF. All of it. Use the manpower savings to...
ie reverse last year's decision :?

3. ...create a new UAV regiment.
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.

4. Re-role 16 Regt (I think) to the BM organisation, invest in its people properly. Create a meaningful exhange post with 1ACC.
I'm intrigued why you think that the Royal Regiment of Artillery should be the army's battlespace management unit?
 
#13
Cyberhacker said:
LAIT said:
2. Give all AD to the RAF. All of it. Use the manpower savings to...
ie reverse last year's decision :?

Last year's? - GBAD decision was taken about 8 years ago.
3. ...create a new UAV regiment.
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?

A matter of subject matter expertise and structures and in-place governance predominantly. However, as the orchestrators and integrators of joint effects it makes sense for the Gunners to operate the assets that provide the feed that informs joint effects decisions.
See also your point 7.

4. Re-role 16 Regt (I think) to the BM organisation, invest in its people properly. Create a meaningful exhange post with 1ACC.
I'm intrigued why you think that the Royal Regiment of Artillery should be the army's battlespace management unit?
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?

uqfegd

pp
 
#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
classroom.
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
tally_target said:
Everything 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)

NFTA

Ref the above- a good FAC can run your ASM more effectively than some rupert thats been taught it in a classroom.

No - hence the F in FAC. he can conduct the terminal BM but he does not want to be faffing around with BM of anything outside his killzone. This is done far better by a BM team with visibility of all assets (UAVs, rotary, fastair, airbreathers, arty etc) who are not in contact.

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''

No - because we are not necessarily talking kintic effects. Soft effects must be factored into the equation.

4) Bin AD, do I need to say any more on that?
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.

uqfegd

pp
 
#16
Binning ADs not a good idea, in reality. I completely agree with focus on "the" war with regards Afghan, but we still need to maintain the ability to conduct "a" war, and therefore AD and indeed AS90 need to be maintained to some extent, otherwise you create an incredibly light force (the one being utilised in Afghan) with no heavy or AD capability (talking across the board now).

The way some people on this forum and indeed in the wider Army talk, you'd think maintaining any Naval force was a bad idea, carriers are an utter waste, and fighters are an outdated concept! Lunacy.

I think that people at the coalface can often find it difficult to see the reasoning behind many decisions taken higher up the food chain, but in reality these decisions have to take into account far wider reaching scenarios than those lower down the food chain may be able to consider/know about.
 
#17
Some good points both fore and against my''master plan''. RA has grabbed FAC for its own. Rightly or wrongly depending on your corp/capbadge. The thing is there are not that many RA cap badged blokes that are able to move on within the career.It seems to stop as soon as the lad gets the position BC's ack waved under his nose.As far as I am aware the majority of the staff at JFACTSU are either RAC or RAF regiment. That is because these corps have invested in these blokes as SME's on CAS/FAC.

FAC/TACP is a growth industry. We need to embrace this.I my time within the FAC/TACP/JTAC community there has been a massive shift in the attitude of the RA towards this''Black art'' (its not a black art but ive heard it quoted many times).Hopefully this will continue as there is a long way to go yet.
 
#18
The matloes have wheeled out their arguments for keeping the cariers in the press. Hence, folk who don't read papers are highly unlikely to read a tri service briefing note!
 
#19
LAIT said:
I understand that a FAC can adopt the specialism as a full screw (lance jack in certain circumstances) all the way to WO1 - the full stream will go 'live' next year. I think this is an excellent plan but will rely on people at every level pushing the career move to those who will benefit most. I think the biggest stumbling block in the short term is a general recognition that the crucial 2IC TACP post be regarded as a stepping stone to Instr posts as JFACTSU and, more critically, a promotion-earning post in itself for a really good Sergeant to get promoted with his peers and not get career-fouled as has happened since time immemorial. Or indeed SSgt - WO2. And why not let WO2/1s be OCs TACP - in the current Op HERRICK construct, they all work to a JFIC beneath an all-encompassing Jt Fires C2 in Lash anyway, so the well-worn argument that 'OC' is an officer's job is past its sell-by-date I think. What is needed are technical experts who are masters of their art, not - as T_T rightly says - a perfectly well educated but largely inexperienced junior Captain who will move on into a sucession of (non-air related) staff jobs pretty rapidly,

As for airspace management, the FAC is the expert at Coy level - agreed and I think there is acceptance of that already. My problem is that TACPs are not 'properly' trained beyond their FAC course and maybe TABM/JAM on the side - they should have their own career/trade course stream as well, just like any other trade - and possibly even a badge?
FAC Career stream up to WO1 to go live next year? Really? Where do I sign!!!

Excellent point ref the OC TACP. Under a carrer stream where a FAC starts as a Full screw by the time he is a Ssgt/WO2 He would be perfectly placed to ba a OC TACP. There are however some officers out there who get bitten by the air bug and continue in a variety of Air related role (probably to the detriment of their careers!) I think there would be a place for these officers to be an OC TACP and then move onto Air related roles in Div/Bde HQ's or the like.

As for TACP's not being trained any further for Battlespace management I believe that the Air Warfare Centre have started a HIDACZ course for BM's and TACP FAC's to try and further their knowledge of Air BM

pensionpointer said:
tally_target said:
Everything 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)

NFTA

Ref the above- a good FAC can run your ASM more effectively than some rupert thats been taught it in a classroom.

No - hence the F in FAC. he can conduct the terminal BM but he does not want to be faffing around with BM of anything outside his killzone. This is done far better by a BM team with visibility of all assets (UAVs, rotary, fastair, airbreathers, arty etc) who are not in contact.
I'll just pick up one point here if I may. Surely in the "Career Stream" of FAC's Tally Target was on about there will be a place for some of the senior FAC's to be a major part of the BM team? Commanded by an SO2 he will have all his SME's advising him as part of the BM plan. A FAC with some experiance would be well placed to do this. Perhaps an ex OC TACP as a SO3?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads