British armed forces operational capability in the future ?

vegan ezra

Hi , read this forum for a while and know theres a few lads on here that are either with the BA or were ..
im very interested in joining , one of the reasons an irish lad joins across the water is to go on operations in conflicts around the world and i guess to see action ,
ive been reading up on whats happening with the cutbacks and their lack of choppers and air carriers but i really cant make heads or tails of what this means for the future of the british armed forces
my question is will the cutbacks , downsizing and lack of vehicles and all that will that stop them from being deployed in the next few years ???
how does all this affect units like the paras and the royal marines ??? their the rapid reaction force so what does this mean for them as their supposed to be first in and that ?
im just asking because you would hate to join up go through all that training and go no where with it you know ?
anyone with decent opinions or with experience over there please post as this could end up affecting me joining or not
thanks

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

vegan ezra

no need to apologize , i prob shouldnt have said that as my mind is made up and im just waiting to start now so ill be going regardless i just want to know what people think this means ? and how it will affect across the board ; BA/PARAS/ROYAL IRISH , RAF , NAVY/MARINES ? ..
ive heard some units will be untouched some wont ..
but basically what i want to know is will they be able to go overseas the way they did pre Iraq if they have to or are needed ?

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Victor

vegan ezra wrote: »

my question is will the cutbacks , downsizing and lack of vehicles and all that will that stop them from being deployed in the next few years ???

Has any army complained it has too much equipment?

Let's exclude the right kind of equipment and maintenance arguments.

golden lane

rapid reaction....which will be the thing of the future......will have mixed eu forces i believe.........there are eu forces in the uk at present......

the army doesn't need to be so big.....

vegan ezra

cheers for the link feeney ,really ??? your buddy said they re goin in 2015 ? you keep hearing they re done in 2014 dont you .. who knows

i just said it because they keep saying they dont have aircraft carriers etc to protect the falklands so thought it tied in but ya fair enough

mixed eu forces ? theres eu forces in the uk at the moment ?
what do you mean ? sorry i know nothing about that so if you could fill me in

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

cruasder777

vegan ezra wrote: »

Hi , read this forum for a while and know theres a few lads on here that are either with the BA or were ..
im very interested in joining , one of the reasons an irish lad joins across the water is to go on operations in conflicts around the world and i guess to see action ,
ive been reading up on whats happening with the cutbacks and their lack of choppers and air carriers but i really cant make heads or tails of what this means for the future of the british armed forces
my question is will the cutbacks , downsizing and lack of vehicles and all that will that stop them from being deployed in the next few years ???
how does all this affect units like the paras and the royal marines ??? their the rapid reaction force so what does this mean for them as their supposed to be first in and that ?
im just asking because you would hate to join up go through all that training and go no where with it you know ?
anyone with decent opinions or with experience over there please post as this could end up affecting me joining or not
thanks

Lack of choppers ?

They have over 700, the largest fleet outside the US, around 80 chinooks.

The reorganisation is about the army being more of a rapid reaction force, in and out quickly, instead of boots on the ground for long periods.

Hence the two Royal Navy helicopter carriers.


With the Middle East and Africa more unstable then ever, without doubt rapid reaction type operations will happen far more frequently then in the past.

In the coming years soldiering will get more and more high tec. With helmet mounted computer displays, soldiers will have a global positioning systems, a dead reckoner and map displays to increase his situational awareness, helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held and laptop computers and communications systems etc.Clothing which will reduce the soldier's visual, radar and infrared signatures as well as providing personal temperature control and environmental protection.

35,000 sets of FIST kit are expected to be procured and the systems will be deployed by the British Army, the Royal Air Force Regiment and Royal Marines. FIST will enter service between 2015 and 2020.


......This stuff costs money.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/

Donny5

cruasder777 wrote: »

Lack of choppers ?

They have over 700, the largest fleet outside the US, around 80 chinooks.

522, of which 46 are Chinooks, according to Wikipedia.

cruasder777

Donny5 wrote: »

522, of which 46 are Chinooks, according to Wikipedia.

That does not include those in storage.


Wiki is wrong.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/12/15/british-army-in-afghanistan-to-get-22-more-chinook-helicopters-but-not-until-2013-86908-21898887/

THE Ministry of Defence today announced plans to buy 22 new Chinook helicopters to increase air support on the frontline in Afghanistan.
The announcement came hours before a statement to the House of Commons in which Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth is expected to unveil deep cuts in other parts of the military budget.

Mr Ainsworth said the first 10 Chinooks would be completed in 2013, and the procurement would increase the UK's fleet of the heavy-lift helicopters from 48 to 70.

Donny5

cruasder777 wrote: »

Wiki is wrong.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/12/15/british-army-in-afghanistan-to-get-22-more-chinook-helicopters-but-not-until-2013-86908-21898887/

Well, that article is out of date,I'm afraid. The current fleet is 46, because they've lost two in Afghanistan since that was written, and the order for 22 more Chinooks has been reduced to 14. So we're left with 46 now, probably increasing to 60 starting sometime in 2014.

Donny5

cruasder777 wrote: »

I would rather trust what the previous head of the MOD said rather then wiki thanks.

The article I linked to is the MOD's own site. I think you can trust its articles about the SDSR cut-backs.

vegan ezra

cheers for the replies
the only reason i really mention choppers was because of that time the royal marines bungeed themselves to an apache coz there was no other choppers around .. apologies

OS119

vegan ezra wrote: »

...but basically what i want to know is will they be able to go overseas the way they did pre Iraq if they have to or are needed ?

they will be able to go overseas in the future, just in a slightly different way.

very roughly, the capability is being shifted from a 'Heavy', armoured force that can fight tank battles, to a lighter, infantry focused force. there is however, a loss of permanancy - its very unlikely that Force 2020 could, as an example, maintain a 10,000 man force in Afghanistan for 10 years. that is, to my eyes, a deliberate political decision. British politicians have had their fill of long-term, large scale ground operations.

there are a number of reasons for the change in capability: firstly that on the balance of probabilities, the enemies of the next 20-30 years will be non-state actors rather than something akin to 3rd Soviet Shock Army, secondly that even if a state with large armoured capabilities does become an enemy, the UK's geographical position means that the homeland isn't threatened by that armoured capablity, and that while the best thing to kill a tank is a heavier, more powerful, more mobile tank, an AH-64 also sems to do quite well.

Force 2020 will be more deployable, and in my view more likely to get involved in numerous, small, short term operations that do not encompass nation-building - it will, interestingly, be less reliant on coalitions to help it fight wars. the C-17/A-400M/A-330 fleet will be better at airlift than any previous RAF airlift capability, and the 2 QE class carriers will be better at providing strike and CAS than any RN capability in the modern era.

i would not be that surprised to see a slow-down in overseas operations between the end of Afghanistan and 2020, for both political and capability reasons, but it'll be a slow-down, not an end, and when the new strategic capabilities come online, and the Army has been re-built/rested - both at about 2020 - i expect the RN and the Army to be blowing crap up, worldwide, in good fashion.

Donny5

OS119 wrote: »

tthe 2 QE class carriers will be better at providing strike and CAS than any RN capability in the modern era.

The one QE Class carrier, assuming it's commissioned and that their are aircraft to fly from her - both big ifs at the minute.

tac foley

vegan ezra wrote: »

mixed eu forces ? theres eu forces in the uk at the moment ?

There are NO mixed EU forces in the UK - anywhere.

The last time a large number of foreign troops came over to UK was in September of 1066.

tac

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

The one QE Class carrier, assuming it's commissioned and that their are aircraft to fly from her - both big ifs at the minute.

both now - both are now 'funded', and both will, under current plans, be commissioned. the point about what will fly off them is well made - F-35B is still a technical, and more pointedly, a financial risk.

obviously, if it falls then we have a problem - we can open up both fully built carriers, fit cat and traps retrospectively, and buy F/A-18E/F instead of F-35B at an astonishing, eye-watering cost, or operate two 60,000 ton helicopter carriers.

my own view is that F-35B will muddle through, it will be much more expensive, and less capable than 'C', but its cost will still be less than buying 'C' and retrospectively fitting Cat and traps to the carriers in 2018 or so - and more politically acceptable than two carriers with nothing to carry.

i'd lay reasonable money on a smaller F-35B buy than desired, with a mixed airgroup of marinised AH-64, troop carrying Merlin, ASW Merlin, and an AEW/AWACS Merlin - with TLAM capability on the Astutes being enhanced to make up the shortfall of F-35B in the strike role.

Donny5

tac foley wrote: »

There are NO mixed EU forces in the UK - anywhere.

The last time a large number of foreign troops came over to UK was in September of 1066.

tac

Well, on the last day of 2011, there were 9,317 American Troops alone in the U.K., and that doesn't include Diego Garcia.

OS119 wrote: »

both now - both are now 'funded', and both will, under current plans, be commissioned. the point about what will fly off them is well made - F-35B is still a technical, and more pointedly, a financial risk.

obviously, if it falls then we have a problem - we can open up both fully built carriers, fit cat and traps retrospectively, and buy F/A-18E/F instead of F-35B at an astonishing, eye-watering cost, or operate two 60,000 ton helicopter carriers.

my own view is that F-35B will muddle through, it will be much more expensive, and less capable than 'C', but its cost will still be less than buying 'C' and retrospectively fitting Cat and traps to the carriers in 2018 or so - and more politically acceptable than two carriers with nothing to carry.

i'd lay reasonable money on a smaller F-35B buy than desired, with a mixed airgroup of marinised AH-64, troop carrying Merlin, ASW Merlin, and an AEW/AWACS Merlin - with TLAM capability on the Astutes being enhanced to make up the shortfall of F-35B in the strike role.

Both carriers are now funded, but they're easy targets and there's a lot of budgets between now and their expected entry into service. As for the F-35B, it's almost guaranteed that it will be entered into service because the U.S. has eleven very expensive amphibious assault ships that can't fly the C model. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the U.K. doesn't buy it, as there are currently no orders for B models outside the USMC. I also wouldn't be surprised if 2020 rolls around and the UK's carriers have been quietly forgotten.

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

...but they're easy targets...

not anymore - imv - the publicity over the carriers (and the very public nature of the political posturing over the C&T/V/STOL argument), and the more complete they become, makes them harder and harder to cancel.

barring something dramatic i think they are safe. of course, 'safe' does not mean that both will sail the seven seas for the next 50 years with 36 F-35's apeice, but it does, imv, mean that both will be be completed and both will commision into the RN.

tac foley

Donny5 wrote: »

Well, on the last day of 2011, there were 9,317 American Troops alone in the U.K., and that doesn't include Diego Garcia.

Ah, partly correct. Here in East Anglia I live surrounded by many of them, too, in fact, there are two off-duty guys sitting here in my living room drinking my coffee as I write this - they live across the street from me. Ty and Pat say hello, BTW

However, the question was how many mixed EU troops are there in UK right now. The answer still has to be none - the US of A is not part of the European Union.

There are what you might call EU troops here in UK in minute numbers - members of staff at our military colleges and in certain intelligence-related units but they could not be described as being part of any mixed EU unit, just serving in their own nationally-interested focus groups of around four or five personnel or acting as instructors as noted.

I assume that you actually know where Diego Garcia is located? I think that you'd agree that it is nowhere near Europe, and is NOT part of the UK either.

tac

Donny5

tac foley wrote: »

However, the question was how many mixed EU troops are there in UK right now. The answer still has to be none - the US of A is not part of the European Union.

I didn't say there were or it was. I took issue with:

tac foley wrote: »

The last time a large number of foreign troops came over to UK was in September of 1066.

tac foley wrote: »

I assume that you actually know where Diego Garcia is located? I think that you'd agree that it is nowhere near Europe, and is NOT part of the UK either.

Of course, which is why I was sure not to include it.

OS119

technically, there are EU troops in the UK - JPHQ at Northwood acts as one of three(?) European operational HQ's for the EU Battlegroup programme, so yes, there are a small number of non UK, EU 'badged' personnel in the UK on a permanent basis.

there is also continuous EUBG work being done in the UK, to which non-UK EU 'badged' personnel are seconded - the UK forms the bulk of one of its two allocated BG's with the Netherlands, and from vague recall the next UK lead BG will involve some of the Baltic States.

certainly the Dutch did a big exercise over here with 3CdoX that was a work up for the last BG...

vegan ezra

have a much better idea of it now thank
on the subject of eu troops in the uk maybe tac could answer this one for me .. have the royal marines or paras ever gone peacekeeping with the un ? and if they have did they wear blue berets and helmets covers ?

golden lane

tac foley wrote: »

There are NO mixed EU forces in the UK - anywhere.

The last time a large number of foreign troops came over to UK was in September of 1066.

tac

of course the usa kept all their troops for the invasion of europe....at home....

german army trucks on salisbury plain, italian troops stationed in gloucester........my imagination, i suppose.....2012...


the free french troops were stationed in paris ????

the free polish troops were stationed in warsaw..??????

OS119

vegan ezra wrote: »

...have the royal marines or paras ever gone peacekeeping with the un ? and if they have did they wear blue berets and helmets covers ?

yup, the last Blue Helmet job the UK did was Bosnia, lots of RM and PARA over the whole of the Op - not in large units because Bosnia was an Armoured Infantry op, and PARA and RM are light role - but lots of bodies on specialist tasks and reinforcement Coys.

i think one of the PARA Bn's did the Rhodesia PK job, but i may be wrong...

tac foley

golden lane wrote: »

of course the usa kept all their troops for the invasion of europe....at home....

Sarcasm is not required - the question was about EU troops. When the Americans were last here in very large numbers, WW2, there was no EU.

german army trucks on salisbury plain, italian troops stationed in gloucester........my imagination, i suppose.....2012...

Temporarily based in UK for exercise purpose? Mixed? Please show me how they were mixed with British troops?

the free french troops were stationed in paris ????

[I]WW2 again. Not EU.[/I]

the free polish troops were stationed in warsaw..??????

WW2 again, and not EU.[/I]

There are NO mixed EU/UK troops here in UK.

There are NO EU troops permanently based here in UK.

If in doubt about the meaning of the word 'troops', please look it up.

tac

neilled

Essentially the brits have decided that the next war they are going to fight isn't going to be the full on first rate power vs first rate power with armour clashing on the battle field supported by fast air..... the threat is more likely to be from non state actors such as ethnic or nationalist separatists rather the the third shock army.

As such their armoured capacity has been mothballed in comparison to what it was. If your thinking of becoming a tankie, its a declining profession right now. Thats not to say it won't be expanded again in future, but it looks increasingly unlikely. Indeed, the UK cavalry are moving towards what the Irish cav do - and thats recce, moving ahead of the main force, parking up, dismounting and finding out where the enemy are so that they can be crushed with a combined arms attack. However, with the emergence of ever more high tech UAV's some think the day of armoured recce is over......

Rather UK land forces are moving to a three tier structure

The first we in laymans terms you could all the light or "elite" role. These guys will be the initial entry into a conflict zone and will probably be the ones crossing the border first. As such they will be considered "elite" infantry - harder training than a regular "line" soldier, and be expected to fight and survive against the odds with little support from the word go.

The likes of your Royal Marines, Parachute regiment will be up there, with a few raf regiment thrown into the mix. however some of the other infantry regiments will be assigned this role as well. One of the battalions from "The Rifles" are commando trained. Basically if storming the beachhead, parachuting or choppering into battle are your thing, then this is where to go.

The next crowd are your regular infantry - there's nothing wrong with these guys and they'll probably be busy, once the initial flurry is over, or the enemy are tooled up with armour, regular "line" infantry will be out in force. Line infantry comes a variety of formats - light infantry (which isn't, they carry most of their stuff), armoured (who operate from tracked armoured vehicles like the warrior, bradley or bmp) and mechanised (who typically use a wheeled less heavily armoured vehicle like the mowag in service with the Irish). Off the three, the light are the cheapest to run, getting more expensive with mechanized and then armoured with the level of firepower available increasing as well. Indeed, there's going to be scrap over which units get the mechanized slots, which infantryman wouldn't rather ride to battle in an armoured hide, or go there in canvas sided truck?

Finally you have the supporting arms - your artillery, army air corps, cavalry, medics, logistics. Whilst derided by some "front line" troops as remfs, pogues etc, without these guys the "teeth" arms can't function, for every rifleman blazing away at the enemy theres any number of people needed to put him in the field. Apparently the unit that has been shot at most in afghanistan for the brits have been the Royal Logistics Corps. If you were a lightly armed insurgent, would you rather take on a heavily armed mechanised infantry unit, or have a pop at the poor old logistics unit trundling past in their trucks full of flamable materials?

In the past, UK units in the infantry used to rotate between the different roles - now each unit is getting a fixed role so what someone looking for a career will have to decide is which type of unit has a role that will match their career aspirations. The thing is, even if you opt for an "elite" unit that is supposed to be an initial force, you might not end up in that scenario, your unit might be deployed on an exercise somewhere in the world when a crisis errupts and a regular unit goes instead, or because they need the clunking armoured personnel carriers that they have.

However - politics will dictate as to what operations soldiers go on and whether the british government thinks its national interests and political skins are worth shipping you and your buddies off to get shot at. That said, i think the brits have been under hostile fire somewhere in the world most years since 1945.....

tac foley

neilled wrote: »

Essentially the brits have decided that the next war they are going to fight isn't going to be the full on first rate power vs first rate power with armour clashing on the battle field supported by fast air..... etc.

Good post, apart from the 'brits'.

Nationalities are capitalised, or they feel insulted.;)

tac

cruasder777

OS119 wrote: »

yup, the last Blue Helmet job the UK did was Bosnia, lots of RM and PARA over the whole of the Op - not in large units because Bosnia was an Armoured Infantry op, and PARA and RM are light role - but lots of bodies on specialist tasks and reinforcement Coys.

i think one of the PARA Bn's did the Rhodesia PK job, but i may be wrong...

The Paras were in Macadonia in 99 they were the spearhead unit first in, they took the high ground and the airport for the Irish guards battlegroup to then cross the border and head into Pristina.

OS119

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Paras were in Macadonia in 99 they were the spearhead unit first in, they took the high ground and the airport for the Irish guards battlegroup to then cross the border and head into Pristina.

not a UN, Blue-hatted job, which is what the bloke asked for.

and that would be Kosovo, not Macedonia.

cruasder777

neilled wrote: »

Essentially the brits have decided that the next war they are going to fight isn't going to be the full on first rate power vs first rate power with armour clashing on the battle field supported by fast air..... the threat is more likely to be from non state actors such as ethnic or nationalist separatists rather the the third shock army.

As such their armoured capacity has been mothballed in comparison to what it was. If your thinking of becoming a tankie, its a declining profession right now. Thats not to say it won't be expanded again in future, but it looks increasingly unlikely. Indeed, the UK cavalry are moving towards what the Irish cav do - and thats recce, moving ahead of the main force, parking up, dismounting and finding out where the enemy are so that they can be crushed with a combined arms attack. However, with the emergence of ever more high tech UAV's some think the day of armoured recce is over......

Rather UK land forces are moving to a three tier structure

The first we in laymans terms you could all the light or "elite" role. These guys will be the initial entry into a conflict zone and will probably be the ones crossing the border first. As such they will be considered "elite" infantry - harder training than a regular "line" soldier, and be expected to fight and survive against the odds with little support from the word go.

The likes of your Royal Marines, Parachute regiment will be up there, with a few raf regiment thrown into the mix. however some of the other infantry regiments will be assigned this role as well. One of the battalions from "The Rifles" are commando trained. Basically if storming the beachhead, parachuting or choppering into battle are your thing, then this is where to go.

The next crowd are your regular infantry - there's nothing wrong with these guys and they'll probably be busy, once the initial flurry is over, or the enemy are tooled up with armour, regular "line" infantry will be out in force. Line infantry comes a variety of formats - light infantry (which isn't, they carry most of their stuff), armoured (who operate from tracked armoured vehicles like the warrior, bradley or bmp) and mechanised (who typically use a wheeled less heavily armoured vehicle like the mowag in service with the Irish). Off the three, the light are the cheapest to run, getting more expensive with mechanized and then armoured with the level of firepower available increasing as well. Indeed, there's going to be scrap over which units get the mechanized slots, which infantryman wouldn't rather ride to battle in an armoured hide, or go there in canvas sided truck?

Finally you have the supporting arms - your artillery, army air corps, cavalry, medics, logistics. Whilst derided by some "front line" troops as remfs, pogues etc, without these guys the "teeth" arms can't function, for every rifleman blazing away at the enemy theres any number of people needed to put him in the field. Apparently the unit that has been shot at most in afghanistan for the brits have been the Royal Logistics Corps. If you were a lightly armed insurgent, would you rather take on a heavily armed mechanised infantry unit, or have a pop at the poor old logistics unit trundling past in their trucks full of flamable materials?

In the past, UK units in the infantry used to rotate between the different roles - now each unit is getting a fixed role so what someone looking for a career will have to decide is which type of unit has a role that will match their career aspirations. The thing is, even if you opt for an "elite" unit that is supposed to be an initial force, you might not end up in that scenario, your unit might be deployed on an exercise somewhere in the world when a crisis errupts and a regular unit goes instead, or because they need the clunking armoured personnel carriers that they have.

However - politics will dictate as to what operations soldiers go on and whether the british government thinks its national interests and political skins are worth shipping you and your buddies off to get shot at. That said, i think the brits have been under hostile fire somewhere in the world most years since 1945.....

Alot of what you wrote is accurate, but the British Army already has light armour/cavalry (the Royal armored corps) which deploy in a recon role and have done since WW2. Its not a new role, nor a defunct one, although attack helos can carry out the same role in a more effective manner.There will always be a need for light armour recon units.

Most armies are scaling back on heavy armour.

The Parachute Reg, RMs and RAF reg are the UKs spearhead units and after special forces will always lead the way, even more so in expeditionary warfare.

cruasder777

OS119 wrote: »

not a UN, Blue-hatted job, which is what the bloke asked for.

and that would be Kosovo, not Macedonia.

The Paras in Kosovo or Macedonia never wore blue berets. They operated under NATO command in both countries.

vegan ezra

my question wasnt really about them being on un missions .. as funny as it sounds it was about have they ever worn them gammy blue berets because for me personally if i passed the commando course or p company and then had to wear a blue beret id be like a dog lol

OS119

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Paras in Kosovo or Macedonia never wore blue berets. They operated under NATO command in both countries.

err... yes, thats what i wrote, unlike what you wrote, because you don't read questions and get countries wrong.

cruasder777

vegan ezra wrote: »

my question wasnt really about them being on un missions .. as funny as it sounds it was about have they ever worn them gammy blue berets because for me personally if i passed the commando course or p company and then had to wear a blue beret id be like a dog lol

I have never heard of Paras or Royal Marines wearing blue berets.

OS119

cruasder777 wrote: »

I have never heard of Paras or Royal Marines wearing blue berets.

which shows what you know.

for someone with an unhealthy fascination with the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment - not to mention a frankly disturbing one with the RAF Regiment - you are remarkably ill-informed about what they do, and where they go.

perhaps you should change the websites you cruise?

cruasder777

OS119 wrote: »

which shows what you know.

for someone with an unhealthy fascination with the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment - not to mention a frankly disturbing one with the RAF Regiment - you are remarkably ill-informed about what they do, and where they go.

perhaps you should change the websites you cruise?

Post a picture of a Para wearing a blue beret then know it all ?

C coY of 2 Para done a tour in Bosnia and wore their own berets.


As for the RAF Regiment, some units have a Parachute Capability, part of their role is to operate alongside spearhead units to secure landing strips etc. Hence why they operate alongside the Paras and Royal Marines. Also with the Special Forces support group/1 Para.

neilled

tac foley wrote: »

neilled wrote: »

Essentially the brits have decided that the next war they are going to fight isn't going to be the full on first rate power vs first rate power with armour clashing on the battle field supported by fast air..... etc.

Good post, apart from the 'brits'.

Nationalities are capitalised, or they feel insulted.;)

tac

Typo tac :-), UK got full caps throughout. Well amend in due course.

Is insult enough for casus belli :-)?

Reference the point that crusader made about the rac having a Reece role, this is true, however what's always got their rocks off so to speak is good old fashioned heavy cavalry tank on tank action with a bit of grunt crunching thrown in for good measure.

The RAC and other similar armoured corps around the world are embracing Reece with a new fondness.......

goldie fish

tac foley wrote: »

There are NO mixed EU forces in the UK - anywhere.

The last time a large number of foreign troops came over to UK was in September of 1066.

tac

Or June 1944.....

Victor

goldie fish wrote: »

Or June 1944.....

Do you mean the period up to June 1944, because lots of them left then.

delta-boy

Heard at the end of a tour under the UN, the regiment gathered at a big bonfire and burned their blue berets, not sure where I heard it but sounds true with the regimental... ethos :P

getz

tac foley wrote: »

There are NO mixed EU forces in the UK - anywhere.

The last time a large number of foreign troops came over to UK was in September of 1066.

tac

there are still thousands of american troops and their families in the UK today

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

tac foley

feeney92 wrote: »

They aren't from the EU last time I checked?

Quite - see my posts #17, #21 and #27.

Even MORE to the point - 'troops' are defined as infantry personnel. 90% of all US military personnel here in UK are Air Force, the rest are Navy based at Holy Loch in Scotland. There are NO US soldiers in troop numbers based here in UK. There are a few USMC and Army scattered around the numerous training establishments, and my own unit had a single USAAF exchange officer as part of the permanent staff on a two-year tour.

I rest my case.

tac

OzCam

The May and June issues of combat & Survival carried stories about the UK 3 Para and French 8e RPIMa doing joint training as part of the workup for a new EU joint rapid reaction force. I don't have the issues to hand but I can look them up if needed.

Does that count?

OS119's analysis is reasonable, but it depends on both the A400M and F-35B being delivered in some kind of working condition. Both of them are way behind schedule and many times over budget. The amount of money wasted on them and the (very capable but shockingly expensive) Typhoon are the reason the headcount has to be reduced by so much, and the RN's frigates have no useful armament.

nellied, do you have a source for the idea that unit's will no longer rotate into and out of the rapid response and longer-term roles. I can see the RM and Paras etc remaining in the rapid role, but surely some of the others will have to rotate in and out periodically?

golden lane

Victor wrote: »

Do you mean the period up to June 1944, because lots of them left then.

yes, about 5%.........................

raymann

so, from what i am reading here, the changes they are making are actually quite suited to the type of needs that they are likely to come across and as such are probably the correct thing to do?

OS119

raymann wrote: »

so, from what i am reading here, the changes they are making are actually quite suited to the type of needs that they are likely to come across and as such are probably the correct thing to do?

broadly, yes.

you'll not meet many people who, given the choice of a freebee, wouldn't say 'yeah, ok, this structure is ok, and will probably be reasonably well suited to what we'll need, but i'd quite like to have to have a GBFO Armoured Division in the back pocket just in case..', but in broad terms, it is probably more suited to the kind of concept of operations that the UK is likely to undertake in the next 10-20 years.

the risk of course, as you'll have noted, is the number of 'probably', 'likely' and 'shoulds' in that statement.

personally, i think that SDSR 2015 and 2020 will see even more of the 'heavy' Army getting canned and the money going to the RAF and RN - they may not be able to produce the same effect as putting an Infantry Brigade on the ground, but by and large they do it without casualties, and with less public scruntiny.

tac foley

golden lane wrote: »

yes, about 5%.........................

Not far from where we live here in UK there are over 3500 Americans who never left.

Check it out - Madingley American Cemetery, Cambridgeshire.

tac

twinytwo

OS119 wrote: »

which shows what you know.

for someone with an unhealthy fascination with the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment - not to mention a frankly disturbing one with the RAF Regiment - you are remarkably ill-informed about what they do, and where they go.

perhaps you should change the websites you cruise?

no point OS... didnt you know crusader knows "them" from way back.. cant tell you much though cause its "confidental" but rest assured all his info comes from "people in the know"