Whats the ARRC up to?

#2
What happens if NATO is suddenly required for something unexpected? Mr Blairwitch is stretching something that can't stretch anymore. I'm surprised he hasn't resigned given the way things are with almost everything in this country. Is there any good news?
 
#3
Yes, Spiting image is making a come back and beer might be coming down in price :p ...but apart from that bugger all

Firemen on strike :evil:
Railways + tube about to go on strike :evil:
Forces about to be shafted and then hacked to bits because some treasury tosser can't do their sums properly...
:evil:
NHS screwed :evil:
Education system tinkered with till its about to fall apart :evil:
Low Un-employment - don't make me laugh :evil:
ethical foreign policy 8O
Forces to be used to break petrol protests if they ever happen :evil:
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#6
Why does ARRC in fact exist?

Why do we devote two HQs and three Regts (HQ ARRC (majority British), HQ 1 Sig Bde, 7 & 16 Sig Regts, and ARRC Sp Bn) to an organisation that hasn't deployed in half a decade? When it last did - AGRICOLA - the US swore never to 'fight a war by committee' again. Numerous comments in both US and UK doctrine indicate the future operations will be undertaken by so-called 'coalitions of the willing'. What role will ARRC play?

ARRC is no longer the sole Corps-level HQ, as the post opening this thread identified, there are now a number of other High Readiness Formation (Land) (HRF(L)) HQs, provided by other members of NATO. At least one of these has already deployed operationally (commanding ISAF), and none of them rely on CIS as ancient as Ptarmigan, in the way that ARRC does.

Rumours have been circulating since the end of TELIC 1 that ARRC would be off to Afghanistan. Apparently the suggestion is that primarily the British elements of ARRC would deploy. I understand that HQ ISAF was a Div HQ task (it was originally led by HQ 3 (UK) Div); why therefore are we considering shoe-horning a Corps HQ in to the job? To justify ARRC's existence? (Interestingly, 7 Sig Regt is the only deployable R SIGNALS Regt not to have either deployed complete, or to have to deployed a sub-unit, on TELIC.)

Is it perhaps that ARRC represents the very embodiment of Defence Diplomacy, and that it exists merely for the prestige that Framework Nation (FN) status used to carry with it? If so, is it now a waste of time, effort, resources and manpower?
 
#7
DangerMouse said:
Why does ARRC in fact exist?

Rumours have been circulating since the end of TELIC 1 that ARRC would be off to Afghanistan. Apparently the suggestion is that primarily the British elements of ARRC would deploy. I understand that HQ ISAF was a Div HQ task (it was originally led by HQ 3 (UK) Div); why therefore are we considering shoe-horning a Corps HQ in to the job? To justify ARRC's existence? (Interestingly, 7 Sig Regt is the only deployable R SIGNALS Regt not to have either deployed complete, or to have to deployed a sub-unit, on TELIC.)
DM, quite right. Even if the link at the top of this thread is correct they're describing squashing the ARRC HQ, or probably the UK elements of it, into a divisional HQ role to replace the MND currently manned by the Poles in Iraq.

Other than the fact that they are fully manned and some might argue better equipped than the rest of the Army, less the Ptarmigan CIS! They are, I'm sure chomping at the bit.

I had heard that there was talk of sending them as a XXX HQ out to Iraq. I guess that this would be unlikely if there was then the need to send other NATO member's staff with the HQ. Seem to remember a number of Germans on the staff for example. Might not pass the Schroeder test.

Having read the other thread in the NAAFI Bar referred to in msr's post, I am actually thinking of applying for a post in ARRC since it may offer some stability for a while. DCOS (Home) getting somewhat peeved with my constant deployments, other committments and general absence from the Home Front. They can put up with it for a while, and TELIC 1 wasn't a problem, but over 450 days on the LSSA record in 4 years - not including those shorter absences - is pi$$ing her off.

Must be frustrating though to be in a high readiness formation HQ and have no realistic prospect of deployment for some of the staff and supporting regiments.
 
#8
More to the point, why is it called ARRC at all? It'd take weeks to deploy if it ever did.

Now in the good old days of BAOR we had 4 Armd Divisions in Germany and nobody in a unit was supposed to knock off until 75% of that unit was ready to deploy within 4 hours. That's rapid. You take a stroll around any LAD park in Germany today and you'll see masses of vehicles sat around for weeks/months awaiting spares. It's a farce to call it a Rapid Reaction Corps.

Why not just call it the Allied Corps?
 
#9
Why not just call it a croc of shiit and disband it, or has Buffoon considered that option as well?

Hell at this rate of cutbacks, he'll have to deploy himself :twisted:
 
#11
We have to look a bit deeper into this one.

The ARRC is a deployable Corps asset which belongs to NATO. Some may argue that in the present climate a NATO Corps is unlikely to deploy, however that is crystal ball stuff and not for us to decide. The Brits were the ones who leaped up and down to offer UK as the framework nation when 1 BR Corps closed, however Tony :lol: has deployed so many troops it is the last resource left where UK troops have not deployed.

The problem is Tony :lol: has given these troops to NATO and as we all know, NATO does not want to get involved in Iraq! The second problem is if Tony :lol: asks to use them (the Brits) and leaves Johnny Foreigner behind that is essentially saying that he is pulling out of NATOs committment to the ARRC, therefore the death of the ARRC and UKs role in NATO.

Dead interesting stuff this.... :wink:
 
#12
bullshit said:
Dead interesting stuff this.... :wink:
What about Medical Cover, already the Defence Medical Servicies are over commited, a deployment of this size will require a Fd Hospital and possibly a Medical Regiment - We have NO SPARE MEDICS - already being deployed on BACK to BACKS and lots leaving.

If the Surgeon General says I will give you a Fd Hospital - it will possibly only have 35 beds no more than a Medical Reception Station.

The TA - Bless them have almost dried up and done at least one tour in their 3 years cycle.

I do not know how many Medics the ARRC has, but in its ORBAT I bet it can not deploy it!!!
 
#13
HQ ARRC itself has only a regtl aid post., which is part of the Sp Bn. COMARRC has said that there is currently no orders to move. This always gets me worried. Last time I got told this 2 weeks later I was sat in Macadonia freezing my arrse off.
 
#14
big_bad_bill said:
HQ ARRC itself has only a regtl aid post., which is part of the Sp Bn. COMARRC has said that there is currently no orders to move. This always gets me worried. Last time I got told this 2 weeks later I was sat in Macadonia freezing my arrse off.
Bill,

Too true, but the Telegraph was saying yesterday that it was likely any decision will now wait until after the European elections on 10 Jun. So you should have more than 2 weeks notice. Besides, I guess they are trying to do this within readiness. What NTM are ARRC on? :)
 
#15
Let us just say they take the 'Rapid' part seriously. 8O
 
#16
DangerMouse said:
Why does ARRC in fact exist?

Why do we devote two HQs and three Regts (HQ ARRC (majority British), HQ 1 Sig Bde, 7 & 16 Sig Regts, and ARRC Sp Bn) to an organisation that hasn't deployed in half a decade?
Think you'll find 11 Sig Bde's units are also dedicated to ARRC (33, 34, 35, 36 and 40 Sig Regts), ARRC's RCZ anyway.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#17
polar said:
Think you'll find 11 Sig Bde's units are also dedicated to ARRC (33, 34, 35, 36 and 40 Sig Regts)
Hmm... Yes - I'd forgotten them, thanks.

polar said:
ARRC's RCZ anyway.
If by RCZ you mean Rear Combat Zone, then I thought that was a Cold War term, which got binned along with things like ACTIVE EDGE, and all the other changes in the early 1990s. That's when ARRC was created, and although it's role may have been hazy during the mid/late 1990s, it has during the last few years expanded its aspirations from so-called "Petersburg Tasks" (humanitarian crises, etc.) to apparently considering itself being able to command multinational forces on high-intensity expeditionary operations :roll: ...or so it claims... Despite reading lots of military journals, articles, and books, I have yet to read any dissenting voice saying "ARRC is a modern and relevant organisation, suited to the current and future political climate". Rather, most sources suggest that future operations will be coalitions of the willing, and that although NATO may be useful as a pool from which forces may be drawn, the idea of a Corps-sized HQ permanently consuming resources, which waiting for a call that will probably never come, is fiscal madness.

Anyway, back to this remark:

polar said:
Think you'll find 11 Sig Bde's units are also dedicated to ARRC (33, 34, 35, 36 and 40 Sig Regts)
How long do you think that will be the case once Falcon comes in and Ptarmigan is binned? (What future in fact, if any, does 12 Sig Gp have post-Ptarmigan withdrawal??)
 
#18
DangerMouse said:
polar said:
Think you'll find 11 Sig Bde's units are also dedicated to ARRC (33, 34, 35, 36 and 40 Sig Regts)
How long do you think that will be the case once Falcon comes in and Ptarmigan is binned? (What future in fact, if any, does 12 Sig Gp have post-Ptarmigan withdrawal??)
Re-equipping with Falcon presumably.

msr
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top