Jump to content

Falklands and the thirty year rule


Recommended Posts

Actually that's not entirely true. It was the case for the first 2 or 3 years. Then the policy changed, anybody could talk to the press about an incident providing they stuck to the facts they had first hand and avoided speculation.

I'm not talking about everybody having a say, I'm talking about the British government consistently failing to put out the official view in a timely and coherent manner and not in the first 2 or 3 years, after incidents like Loughgall in 1987, Coagh in 1991 and Clonoe in 1992 for example. And somehow I don't think any random squaddy or civil serpent were going to be rushing forth to speak to the press without permission from those higher up their respective chains of command, irrespective of what the rules said.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Er I don't think you understand UK military slang. By definition there are no Ruperts in the SAS, and the proponet of the Hercules assault landing was none other than de la Billiere. Actually I don't think it had been discussed with the RAF who may have had a view on the matter.

Ref the bolded bit, methinks you have been imbibing too heavily at the font of Tony Geraghty et al. IIRC by the early 1990s a tour with the SAS was a pretty important officer career ticket punch altho spending too long was also not recommended either. The SAS OR memoirs from Granby don't paint a particularly flattering portrait of the Ruperts either. The SAS is part of the BA and is shaped accordingly, all the "equals under the sandy beret" propaganda stuff not withstanding.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH, FOR FCUKS SAKE! Belgrano was a combatant vessel of a nation which had initiated hostilities with the UK government. Who gives a flying leap at a rolling donut WHERE she was, or where she was going? The Brits would have been within their rights to sink the damned thing at the docks. I cannot believe the whining, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over the sinking of the Belgrano.

 

x1000000000000

 

:glare:

 

It' wasn't a mugging. It was not a crime drama. Going or coming doesn't bloody well matter. "But officer you shot him in the back...?"

 

Nor should it factor in. Combatant, ship? Yes. Threat? Of course it is. Not in port? Sink the bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The press/media are supposed to send folk out to find out what is going on and present their findings to the public, not sit about in safe locations like the Green Zone or Camp Bastion waiting for the gov to dole out its version of events, and if the gov interfere with them they should tell the public that too. Unfortunately as the Levenson Enquiry is showing, the press at least have been happily pursuing far more important matters... :angry:

 

BillB

 

Just on that point, media faults aside I think the case of Iraq, especially in the 2006-2007 period is fairly unique in the history of western wars, because no matter how intrepid the individual journalists to go out and try and do their job in that time was akin to suicide in practical terms.

It is a distinction people unfamiliar with those sorts of environments aren't really equipped to understand, there isn't the equivalent situation in Afghanistan or any other western war to the sort of threat level to journalists that there was in Iraq especially during the civil war period, and I don't know anyone who knows anything about that world ( including people who make the same complaints about different warzones) that would level it at those covering Iraq - the most amazing part is how poorly the US and coalition were to capitalise on that golden PR opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ref the bolded bit, methinks you have been imbibing too heavily at the font of Tony Geraghty et al. IIRC by the early 1990s a tour with the SAS was a pretty important officer career ticket punch altho spending too long was also not recommended either. The SAS OR memoirs from Granby don't paint a particularly flattering portrait of the Ruperts either. The SAS is part of the BA and is shaped accordingly, all the "equals under the sandy beret" propaganda stuff not withstanding.

 

You obviously don't understand the slang either. Rupert (a relatively recent term) basically means a newly commissioned officer. Offrs in SAS are on at least their second posting.

 

RMAS was turning out around 1000 offrs per year, total junior offr strength of the reg SAS is around 16, and I think they often tended to be capts. You can probably toss in another handful for SRR and 4/73 Bty, but again capts are more likely. Not a lot of scope for ticket punching, given a 2 yr tour (max 0.1% junior offrs). Where does some of this crap come from?

 

I would take no notice of OR memoirs on this matter, its part of the long tradition that the entire BA could be far better run by the sgts mess (and that everyone can do their bosses job better than the incumbent). In the SAS case its a feature that ORs tend to spend a long time in the regt (many/most only leave to take up a promotion to WO2 or discharge), whereas most non-LE offrs only do a single tour. This inevitably means that the ORs have a lot more experience than the lts/capts (not forgetting that the regt doesn't pull in too many ptes/tprs/gnrs/sprs/rfn/etc; most are JNCOs who become tprs in the regt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing yet formally released into the National Archive, but you will find the news releases here:

 

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/archive2011.htm

 

Last release was Dec 30, which would be consistent with an annual release as I can't see anything similar for November, etc.

 

However note this item from Jan 2011: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/531.htm

 

As part of a number of changes to the Freedom of Information and Public Records Acts announced today, government departments will begin transferring records to The National Archives in a phased approach reducing the 30 year rule to 20 years. This will result in much earlier access to large numbers of government records.

 

From 2013, the current aim is to transfer two years' worth of government records to The National Archives per year over a ten year period.

Edited by DB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you rather applying hindsight to the issue? Were all journalists like that in 1982? The events of recent months as far as the NOTW are concerned aren't necessarily illustrative of anything other than that the rot has set in now. Were they engaged in those sorts of antics in the South Atlantic or were they trying to tell a story which the Government wanted to spin to the best possible line to support their viewpoint?

 

Dunno, you are the one taking things back to 1982 when I was talking about 2003-6ish. However, for general Press duplicity I think Kirk Douglas' 1951 film Ace in the Hole (aka The Big Carnival) is a pretty good and still relevant example and with regard to military matters consider the role of Hearst and Pulitzer's Yellow Journalism in the Spanish-American War. With ref to the Falklands I think that's a bit of a red herring due to the geographic isolation and barren nature of the place which pretty much placed the journos on the ground pretty much at the mercy of the MoD for sustenance and comms. That's all changed now because everybody and his dog has access to satphones etc which was not the case then. However, if a couple of journos who were out there are to be believed a certain Max Hastings still managed to shaft his fellow seekers of truth pretty royally in the finest tradition of journalism.

 

it appears to me that either you can have an inquisitive, free press that gets it wrong sometimes or you accept that they aren't going to tell the real story until long after the event with revelations that show the government was misleading you. The UK media appears to be providing what the majority of punters there want, a over-concentration on celebrities and trashy gossip.

Well personally I'd categorise the Press/Media deliberately getting into bed with the government's information manipulators to guarantee access to information a bit more seriously than "getting it wrong sometimes". And as I said, if the Media want to be merely a part of the entertainment industry fine, but to hear them tell it they are supposed to be adhering to a higher purpose. They can't have it both ways, altho to be fair they are making a pretty good go of so doing thus far.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on that point, media faults aside I think the case of Iraq, especially in the 2006-2007 period is fairly unique in the history of western wars, because no matter how intrepid the individual journalists to go out and try and do their job in that time was akin to suicide in practical terms.

It is a distinction people unfamiliar with those sorts of environments aren't really equipped to understand, there isn't the equivalent situation in Afghanistan or any other western war to the sort of threat level to journalists that there was in Iraq especially during the civil war period, and I don't know anyone who knows anything about that world ( including people who make the same complaints about different warzones) that would level it at those covering Iraq - the most amazing part is how poorly the US and coalition were to capitalise on that golden PR opportunity.

Fair one Luke, especially the last bit but the local and foreign stringers were routinely braving the suicide in Baghdad and elsewhere to bring stuff back for the Western journos to broadcast from the safety of the GZ as if they had been out and gathered it themselves. I can remember a bit of upset when a journo pointed this out on a TV report or docu and the BBC especially got very defensive about it. And I was talking specifically about what was happening down in and around Basra from early 2004 thru to c.2006. If there were any journos down there - and IIRC there was happy-clappy reports coming out over the period so I assume there were - then they must have been aware that the BA was fighting the most intensive actions of its involvement in Iraq, if only because they saw the blokes, vehicles, wounded and bodies coming into Shaibah. Yet there wasn't really a dicky-bird for the better part of two years, when the media "rediscovered" the matter after the lumps under the carpet got too big to ignore...

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously don't understand the slang either. Rupert (a relatively recent term) basically means a newly commissioned officer. Offrs in SAS are on at least their second posting.

 

I understand the slang fine Nige, but I draw the line at putting my own interpretation on it so I can act the pompous big man on an internet forum. I've never come across the bit about Rupert referring to newly minted officers and neither has anyone else I've run across, so if it's all the same to you I'll stick with the pretty much universal definition of Rupert meaning an officer in general.

 

RMAS was turning out around 1000 offrs per year, total junior offr strength of the reg SAS is around 16, and I think they often tended to be capts. You can probably toss in another handful for SRR and 4/73 Bty, but again capts are more likely. Not a lot of scope for ticket punching, given a 2 yr tour (max 0.1% junior offrs). Where does some of this crap come from?

 

I see. So the Army is happy to allow all these junior officers and captains to step outside the normal career path for two years just for fun and and nothing to do with career development then. As for where some of this crap comes from, prolly the same place as yours. Or are you now going to tell us that you know the colour of the boathouse, and that you have a set of keys too? :rolleyes:

 

I would take no notice of OR memoirs on this matter, its part of the long tradition that the entire BA could be far better run by the sgts mess (and that everyone can do their bosses job better than the incumbent). In the SAS case its a feature that ORs tend to spend a long time in the regt (many/most only leave to take up a promotion to WO2 or discharge), whereas most non-LE offrs only do a single tour. This inevitably means that the ORs have a lot more experience than the lts/capts (not forgetting that the regt doesn't pull in too many ptes/tprs/gnrs/sprs/rfn/etc; most are JNCOs who become tprs in the regt).

 

Pretty big set of assumptions given I don't think I've actually specified which sources I was referring to but thanks anyway for the heads up Nige. However, surprising tho you may find it I'm not totally and breathlessly ignorant when it comes to the BA and the foibles of its various Messes, or how the SAS recruits its manpower. Oh, and thanks for pretty much confirming my point about ticket punching with the bit about officers serving shorter tours than the ORs.

 

BillB

Edited by BillB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the slang fine Nige, but I draw the line at putting my own interpretation on it so I can act the pompous big man on an internet forum. I've never come across the bit about Rupert referring to newly minted officers and neither has anyone else I've run across, so if it's all the same to you I'll stick with the pretty much universal definition of Rupert meaning an officer in general.

 

 

 

I see. So the Army is happy to allow all these junior officers and captains to step outside the normal career path for two years just for fun and and nothing to do with career development then. As for where some of this crap comes from, prolly the same place as yours. Or are you now going to tell us that you know the colour of the boathouse, and that you have a set of keys too? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Pretty big set of assumptions given I don't think I've actually specified which sources I was referring to but thanks anyway for the heads up Nige. However, surprising tho you may find it I'm not totally and breathlessly ignorant when it comes to the BA and the foibles of its various Messes, or how the SAS recruits its manpower. Oh, and thanks for pretty much confirming my point about ticket punching with the bit about officers serving shorter tours than the ORs.

 

BillB

 

What BillB said.

 

AFAIK, officer passing Selection will be given rank of Captain and placed as Troop Commander. After his 2 yr tour, he will be going back to his original unit. He can be asked (invitation only) to come back and serve a tour as Squadron OC. I think as rank of Major. Some of these raise to be higher command of 22 SAS including CO.

Traditional addressing officers in 22 SAS seems to be "Boss", though "rupert" can be used behind back.

Edited by Sardaukar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Royal Navy to send HMS Dauntless to Falkland Islands

The Royal Navy’s most sophisticated warship is being sent to the South Atlantic in a move that will send a powerful message to Argentina.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/9051564/Royal-Navy-to-send-HMS-Dauntless-to-Falkland-Islands.html

 

And they're going to do what? Threaten the Argentine Airforce if they fly nearby? It's a Destroyer. It's not a battleship. They don't even have land attack weapons fitted.

 

THIS is a message.

 

 

Lo how the mighty have fallen. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had a former Admiral on Sky today who pointed out the ship is near state of the art. Parked off the Island, there is very little the Argentines could do to threaten her or the Falklands in his opinion. I dont doubt he is right. However as he pointed out, we have 17 destroyers, and if we lose the Falklands, we have nothing in the cupboard to get it back. No Harriers, and not much in the way of a taskforce to build around it.

 

Safe but not sure is a reasonable description I think.

 

No doubt the Type 45s are a nice class of ship, but they're a far sight less durable than older classes of cruiser and they're still a destroyer. One tends to think of capital ships as being the thing to show force with. Destroyers and CL's are there to keep the flag flying. I'm reminded of another incident where a single british ship was more or less worked over badly by some astute tactics, surprise and a dose of perfidy. Were that to happen here, what would be the response? Britain has defensive measures but not a lot of offensive measures with which to strike back with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had a former Admiral on Sky today who pointed out the ship is near state of the art. Parked off the Island, there is very little the Argentines could do to threaten her or the Falklands in his opinion. I dont doubt he is right. However as he pointed out, we have 17 destroyers, and if we lose the Falklands, we have nothing in the cupboard to get it back. No Harriers, and not much in the way of a taskforce to build around it.

 

Safe but not sure is a reasonable description I think.

 

But are these new Type 45s fitted with anything, yet? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are these new Type 45s fitted with anything, yet? :blink:

Aster 15 & Aster 30 SAMs, Phalanx CIWS, a selection of guns from GPMGs to 4.5", & a helicopter with some weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the Type 45s are a nice class of ship, but they're a far sight less durable than older classes of cruiser and they're still a destroyer. One tends to think of capital ships as being the thing to show force with. Destroyers and CL's are there to keep the flag flying. I'm reminded of another incident where a single british ship was more or less worked over badly by some astute tactics, surprise and a dose of perfidy. Were that to happen here, what would be the response? Britain has defensive measures but not a lot of offensive measures with which to strike back with.

 

Wouldn't happen. 1 Type 45 + 4 Typhoons + land-based SAMs vs. some creaky airframes with pilots with no real anti-surface and minimal air-to-air training? By the time Dauntless exhausts her magazines, the Argies would have trouble sending Piper Cubs to take on the Falklands. Plus, who says there isn't an SSN with Tomahawks lurking about in the South Atlantic?

 

Large ships are nice. Having the capability to mop the floor with whatever can go your way even in a small hull is infinitely better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruisers are overrated. Look at the Belgrano. Considering the relatively few hulls we have in the water, Destroyers are a better option.

 

I dunno, something like the Long Beach modernized to the Aegis system role with the 5000 extra tons of capacity over a Tico would probably have a few things to say about overrated. (There's a what if...)

 

 

Britain still has a strike capacity. We could base Tornados down there, and clearly there is still TLAM. But ultimately all our defence plans seem to be based around retaining the Falklands. Its on the other side of the planet and few friendly bases in between. its not a forgone conclusion.

 

Could they be combat deployed there during hostilities? How long to get a squadron there with all the kit needed to do missions from there? Does the RAF train for such movements on short notice? Could they fly directly there to do a combat op IN the AO? There' a reason the USN has carriers and the RN had carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the Type 45s are a nice class of ship, but they're a far sight less durable than older classes of cruiser and they're still a destroyer.

 

How do you define "cruiser"? Why do you think T45s are "less durable"?

 

Modern warship type classifications have strayed a long way from their original meanings. Two previous classes of British post-WWII destroyer were considered "cruisers" by many non-official sources (Jane's Fighting Ships, etc.). Official policy has been that any AAW ship is a "destroyer". How we got to this position from 'torpedo-boat destroyer' I have no idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thats what he said yesterday. Perhaps he is counting those tied up in reserve? Quite a few of those made a comeback in 1982.

 

In 1982 we had had escorts genuininely in reserve, maintained and preserved with reactivation in mind. Today ships are stripped on decommissioning and left to rot until sold to Turkish shipbreakers. Major units occasionally go to "extended readiness" or mothballs - RFA Fort Austin is currently "regenerating" at Birkenhead after several years laid up without a crew.

 

Only 5 T42s have not yet gone for scrap, of which 3 are still in service but one of those (HMS Liverpool) is decommissioning imminently.

 

He may have meant 17 escorts, (destroyers + frigates), but I thought we were at 19 escorts post SDSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they're going to do what? Threaten the Argentine Airforce if they fly nearby? It's a Destroyer. It's not a battleship. They don't even have land attack weapons fitted.

 

THIS is a message.

 

 

Lo how the mighty have fallen. :(

The mighty haven't fallen anywhere in this context, and there's more to sending a message than shouting at the top of your lungs while beating your chest. The Argies tend to go in for that sort of thing. :rolleyes:

 

The RN's subs could have sunk the entire Argentine navy in short order back in 1982, which is why they all stayed tied up safely at home, especially after the Belgrano business underscored the fact. The Argentine navy is much less capable than it was in 1982 while the RN's sub capabilities have been ehnanced, which means Brit subs could sink the Argentine navy even faster if they were dumb enough to come out, and the RN subs could also reduce their antiquated air force to scrap on the ground using cruise missiles too. The Argentines know this and don't really need a message about it.

 

Consequently HMS Dauntless doesn't need land attack weapons because any Argentine naval force would be swimming for it long before they got anywhere near the FI, never mind landing troops there. As well as providing a nice working up cruise, I suspect the reason the Dauntless has been sent down there is to send a message not just to the Argentines but to Chavez, who was saying he'd lend his shiny new Russian-made air force to help out.

 

The Argentines also know the RAF Typhoons based at Mount Pleasant could likely shred their air force in short order without outside assistance, and that any landing this time around would be up against more than a platoon (-) with small arms and some penguins. The Argentine army got its arse kicked last time by an army that hadn't fought anything more than counter-insurgency or internal security ops for thirty years. Like the RN, the Army's capabilities & equipment is much enhanced since 1982, and has spent a decade or more on continuous ops. The Argentines know this very well too, which is why they are doing a lot of huffing and foot stamping but nothing else.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern warship type classifications have strayed a long way from their original meanings. Two previous classes of British post-WWII destroyer were considered "cruisers" by many non-official sources (Jane's Fighting Ships, etc.). Official policy has been that any AAW ship is a "destroyer". How we got to this position from 'torpedo-boat destroyer' I have no idea...

 

Naming games tend to be either due to treaty issues or political issues. The standard US surface combatant became a destroyer because the light/fast/cheap mental archetype gave Congress a warm fuzzy, despite the fact that the Burkes were essentially light cruisers with heavy armament and no armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...