British Military Current Events

[daftandbarmy]

Ministry of Defence launches 'Action Man'
The Ministry of Defence has launched a HM Armed Forces Action Man-like toy doll in a move to raise the profile of British troops.

By Thomas Harding Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 6:47PM GMT 14 Jan 2009


The under-manned military will launch a detailed range of dolls that will go on sale this spring complete with minutely detailed weapons and clothing.
Two decades after the eye-swivelling, rubber-hand-gripping Action Man figures were last deployed in toy shops the 10in doll, sold under the 'HM Armed Forces' brand name, is to step on to the commercial front line.
Precisely modelled on troops fighting in Helmand province today, each Service is represented. The Army's soldier comes complete with SA80 rifle, body armour and Mark 4 Alpha helmet. His hardy glare has to compete on the shelves alongside the steely gaze of the Royal Marine looking studiedly stoic in his green beret. The RAF, who deploy their Tornado bombers to the frontline in Afghanistan this year, have a pilot in full flight gear with a pistol in case he had to eject over enemy lines.
A range of toys accompany the dolls including a remote control Royal Navy assault, Harrier jump jet and armoured vehicles.
They will be launched on May 8 to coincide with VE Day by the toy makers Character Group who have designed and marketed the action figures under a licensing deal that will give a share of profits to the MoD which currently has a £2 billion hole in its budget.
The company said the military range "promises to fill the significant void in the action figure market in recent years caused by the lack of authentic military-inspired toys".
Originally sold in American by Hasbro the Action Man range, made in Britain by Palitoy under licence, appeared in 1966 and was discontinued in 1984.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/4240762/Ministry-of-Defence-launches-Action-Man.html

 

[CougarKing]

Probably old news to some of you since I see the Bronco already mentioned in other threads.

Bronco to UK

more details about the sale of Bronco to UK in video......downloaded from RazorTV......
http://www.zshare.net/video/54246817646e3db2/

http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo194/spyder-album3/Singapore/Bronco_my14-005-0-myp1.jpg

 

[CougarKing]

From the BBC:

Brown in UK naval offer for Gaza
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has offered British naval resources to help monitor events in the Gaza conflict and stop weapons being smuggled in.

He wants to help ensure protection and monitoring of the crossings into Gaza.

Mr Brown said: "I'm more hopeful that there will be a ceasefire. We will do everything we can to prevent the arms trading at the root of the problems."

The BBC understands the Israeli cabinet is set to approve an end to military activities in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to address the nation following a meeting with top officials on Saturday. It is thought the deal does not involve Hamas, the militants targeted by Israel during three weeks of military action.

Explaining he had been involved in talks with Mr Olmert and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, Mr Brown added: "I believe there is general understanding...

 

[daftandbarmy]

MoD launches investigation after racist Facebook comments

An inquiry into racism in the Armed Forces has been launched by the Ministry of Defence after a number of extreme comments were discovered on Facebook from people claiming to be service personnel.

By Aislinn Simpson
Last Updated: 1:55PM GMT 19 Jan 2009

In one entry on the social networking website, the writer claimed his political view was "kill the paks" while another listed "ethnic cleansing" and "SS marching music" among his interests.
Many postings referred to "Pakis" and "ragheads" and one writer from the West Midlands claimed that many UK service personnel had a deep-seated hatred of immigrants to this country and were sick of seeing people burn flags and preach hatred on our streets.
People claiming to be service personnel also wrote on Facebook that they supported the far-right British National Party (BNP), and one writer who purported to supply his Army number and base asked: "Anyone fancy a spot of Paki bashing?"
The discovery comes after the revelation of a video filmed by Prince Harry in which he refers to a Pakistani comrade as "our little Paki friend" and telling another colleague he looked "like a rag head". The film, which was made three years ago when the prince was 21, provoked fury among race groups who accused him of insensitivity.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission pressed for an inquiry and for strenuous attempts by the MoD to dismantle a "barrack-room culture" that is seen as more tolerant to racism.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation, said the postings showed that the positive change in the attitudes of senior officers had not yet been universally embraced by rank and file troops.
He said: "These comments show quite clearly that racism still exists within the Army," he said. "If the Army truly wants to start recruiting more people from an ethnic minority background, this has got to be addressed as a matter of urgency."
The MoD said the Armed Forces are "fully committed to a working environment which is free from harassment, intimidation and unlawful discrimination."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/4288896/MoD-launches-investigation-after-racist-Facebook-comments.html

 

[Blackadder1916]

British military policewoman who 'worked as prostitute' forced out of Army
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4296021/British-military-policewoman-who-worked-as-prostitute-forced-out-of-Army.html
By Aislinn Simpson Last Updated: 11:01AM GMT 20 Jan 2009

A British military policewoman has been forced to leave the Army after she was allegedly discovered to have been working as a prostitute.

Welsh Lance Corporal Rebecca Smith, 21, was reportedly caught by a superior using a work computer to update her details on an bisexual escort website.

A subsequent investigation by the Royal Military Police's Special Investigations Branch allegedly revealed that she had been providing clients with a range of sexual services costing around £100 a hour.

During working hours, L/Cpl Smith was a junior non-commissioned officer tasked with enforcing discipline among soldiers from the RMP's 160 Company at Provost Barracks in Aldershot, Hampshire.

Posing as Roxi Llewelyn, the blonde reportedly posted pictures of herself on the website dressed in a red top, showing off an impressive tattooed cleavage.

One post on the website said she was "gorgeous" while another thanked her for a "nice time".

Smith, who was named "most promising candidate" on her Army preparation course in Cardiff three years ago, was interviewed by a senior officer before being sacked for serious misconduct. She is now thought to be living back in Cwmbach, near Aberdare.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "This matter was fully investigated and this individual is no longer serving in the Army. All those found to fall short of the Army's high standards or who are found to have committed an offence under the Army Act are dealt with robustly."

 

[geo]

.... Just like the RCMP.... she always got her man >

 

[daftandbarmy]

"This matter was fully investigated and this individual is no longer serving in the Army. All those found to fall short of the Army's high standards or who are found to have committed an offence under the Army Act are dealt with robustly."

Forget the hookers, I propose that we deal robustly with anyone using the stupid term 'robustly' in future.

 

[The Bread Guy]

With the usual tasteful, understated headline treatment of the same story by the Sun.....  ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

A 'Killer App'... I like that one:

Sniper rifle software launched for iPod touch - Telegraph

A new application has been launched for the iPod touch to help gun users line up a clean shot at their target.
The BulletFlight app, which costs £6.99 to download from the iTunes store, has been developed by Runaway App to turn the iPod touch into a ballistics computer which the company says can provide “quick solutions in the field”.
Users can mount their iPod touch to their rifle, and then use the iPod’s touch-screen to tap in details about the wind conditions, ammunition type, distance to the intended target and even the wind speed.
“Unlike other apps, BulletFlight does not output information in table format,” says the application’s iTunes page. “What it does do is dynamically give you the solution you need now to take that shot.”
The application features built-in profiles for three weapons – the M110 semi-automatic precision rifle, the KAC PDW, and the 14.5in SR16 rifle – although users can add more weapons into the app.
“Environmental calculations are based on the Sierra Bullet model,” says the BulletFlight iTunes entry. “Up to five ballistic co-efficients with corresponding velocity thresholds may be used for each profile.”
BulletFlight is not the first shooting application for the iPhone and iPod touch – that honour goes to iSnipe – but it’s the latest in a long line of unusal apps for the devices, which have included simulated beer-pouring, a fart machine, and even “breathalysers”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/apple/4297205/Sniper-rifle-software-launched-for-iPod-touch.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

Go on mate, pull the other one, it's got bells on....




Army chief pledges to ease pressure of combat tours on soldiers' families
By Matthew Hickley
Last updated at 11:41 PM on 19th January 2009

The head of the Army yesterday pledged to tackle the 'unacceptable' pressure of constant tours overseas which has torn apart many soldiers' marriages.
General Sir Richard Dannatt revealed that he and his fellow commanders had been forced to accept lower manpower levels than they believed were necessary.
He also said there was a 'very strong argument' for expanding the Army in future.
In his most outspoken comments since becoming Chief of the General Staff in 2006, General Dannatt stated bluntly that his forces were ' undermanned'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1123146/Army-chief-pledges-ease-pressure-combat-tours-soldiers-families.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

Guardsman Kicks Tourist Butt. Oh man, this made my day. Well done that wooden top!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2161655.ece

 

[daftandbarmy]

Farewell to a warrior: Falklands veteran broken up (and you can claim a piece on eBay)


In her finest hour, she survived the threat of Argentine attack and became host to the historic signing of the surrender when Britain reclaimed the Falklands in 1982.
But now HMS Intrepid has come to the end of her distinguished career serving the nation.
In what will be a poignant sight for those who served on the assault ship, she is being taken apart in Britain's biggest recycling project.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126951/Pictured-The-sad-sight-Falklands-warship-HMS-Intrepid-torn-apart-wrecking-yard.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

Soldier takes dip wearing bearskin


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2171116.ece

 

[daftandbarmy]

Overstretched, overwhelmed and over there
Jan 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Seven years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed Britain’s military failings. It can and must do better

EVERY year but one since the end of the second world war British soldiers have died in action in some corner of the world. Britain no longer has an empire, but it still does a lot of fighting and keeping the peace. Britons are proud of their armed forces. What makes them good is, in part, the experience of fighting and losing men, and they have certainly done a lot of both in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as well as hardening soldiers, wars expose military weaknesses. British forces are overstretched and have struggled to adapt to modern counter-insurgency campaigns. The country’s most important allies, the Americans, are questioning Britain’s commitment and military performance (see article).
Britain was seen to give up the fight in Iraq just as America acted to stem the bloodbath. British troops are due to leave Iraq this summer, but in Afghanistan the military effort is faltering. President Barack Obama sees Afghanistan as his military priority; he is likely to pour in more resources than George Bush did with the “surge” in Iraq. But British commanders say their forces are already under “unacceptable” strain.

The air force’s transport fleet is in a poor state and the navy is shrinking, but the army is worst off. It was not designed to fight two protracted wars, and the strains are made worse by shortages of men and equipment. Battalions are up to one-fifth below their regular size; a further fifth or so are ill, injured or otherwise unfit to deploy. A multi-billion-pound hole in the budget for military equipment means new systems have to be scaled back, delayed or hollowed out. Buying kit is so expensive and takes so long that spending is out of kilter with current needs: most money now goes on fighter jets, aircraft carriers and submarines, which are of little use in Afghanistan. Good front-line equipment is being purchased with emergency funds, but there is too little of it to train with.
George Bernard Shaw once quipped that “the British soldier can stand up to anything except the British War Office.” But bureaucrats are not the only ones to blame. The generals have failed to update their counter-insurgency doctrine and units still rotate every six months (American soldiers stay for 12). This leads to discontinuity and short-term thinking.

Power at a price
The withdrawal from Iraq will ease some of the pressures but not all. Britain needs to rethink its defence policy from the ground up; the last big review took place in 1998. The question is whether to increase defence spending, reallocate existing resources or scale back national ambitions; and that raises the deeper question of what kind of country Britain wants to be.
Like some European states, Britain could limit itself to defending its national territory while sheltering under NATO and America’s nuclear umbrella. For an island nation, that would require only a modest navy and air force, and a small army. But for reasons mainly of history and pride, Britain has wanted to sit at the top table, to be a “force for good” in the world. It has seen its best chance of doing so in being America’s closest friend, ready to take on a hard fight; and this role has won it not just diplomatic clout but also preferential access to intelligence and technology.
But being America’s best military friend is an expensive business. It requires expeditionary capabilities—transport aircraft, field hospitals, aircraft carriers, deep-strike bombers—and, arguably, a nuclear deterrent. Among west Europeans, only France comes close.
Many maintain that Britain should give up the pretence of being a busy power. After the chaos in Iraq and the stalemate in Afghanistan, it is surely time to stop meddling in other countries, which only breeds resentment and more terrorism. As recession squeezes the budget back home, better to divert money from defence to tutoring poor children, developing green technologies—and bailing out banks.
Such arguments are tempting, but wrong. The Iraq invasion did raise Britain’s profile among jihadists, but given its history in the Muslim world and its demographic links to Pakistan, Britain was anyway unlikely to avoid their wrath. Less martial countries too are in the terrorists’ sights, to judge from the Madrid bombings in 2004, foiled plots in Germany and the attack on the Danish embassy in Pakistan last year.

Playing it safe
A direct military threat to Britain or NATO is unlikely but not impossible. A world in economic turmoil may well be more dangerous, not less so—as the spread of totalitarian ideologies in the 1930s suggests. Russia has gone to war with Georgia, uses oil and gas as a weapon, and sends its bombers buzzing close to Britain. Iran is probably building a nuclear bomb. In any case, defence policy is also about creating a more ordered world. The number of UN peacekeepers has grown sevenfold in a decade. Whatever the negative lessons of Iraq, intervention will sometimes be necessary to defend allies, stop mass killings, shore up fragile states, close down terrorist havens and relieve suffering. These jobs should not be left to America or to the poor states that contribute the most troops to the UN. Europe must do its share. The burden falls unfairly on countries that are willing to get involved. But without the lead given by Britain (and France), other Europeans would do even less.
If it is to maintain its troops’ effectiveness, Britain will have to make some difficult choices. Like any form of insurance, defence policy must cover a range of risks: the safety of sea lanes is vital to move supplies in wartime and to trade in peacetime; supremacy of the skies is the prerequisite for success on land or sea. But Afghanistan is the priority, and although a lot more aid there would help, that war will be won or lost on the ground. The army needs more soldiers, helicopters and drones. If Britain cannot increase defence spending, then it must scale back less urgent projects, such as new fighter jets and aircraft carriers.
Abandoning Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum for the Taliban to fill, would mean a victory for extremism everywhere, a destabilised Pakistan and a less safe world. Losing today’s war could make tomorrow’s wars more likely.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13022029

 

[starseed]

Strained the british forces may be, but I was shocked the other day to see their CDS telling the media that the mistakes and shortcomings of the common soldier were doing more to harm the army than the taliban. I mean, whether it's true or not...he's the bloody chief of the defense staff. In my book you don't say stuff like that to the press..

 

[daftandbarmy]

Strained the british forces may be, but I was shocked the other day to see their CDS telling the media that the mistakes and shortcomings of the common soldier were doing more to harm the army than the taliban. I mean, whether it's true or not...he's the bloody chief of the defense staff. In my book you don't say stuff like that to the press..

Have you got a link to an article?

 

[starseed]

Have you got a link to an article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4329353/Defence-chiefs-blame-misakes-by-troops-for-damaging-UKs-fighting-ability.html

In part, I think he's attacking the "if you don't report it, you won't get in trouble for it" attitude that often prevails in militaries and prevents learning from basic mistakes. The tone is however highly offensive to the troops in question imo. Must be because he's RAF not army, lol

edit: "In the article, the CDS writes that mistakes made by British troops on the battlefields in Helmand are having more of an effect on the fighting capability of the armed forces than the Taliban.
He writes: "Evidence shows that more than half our accidents and incidents are down to human factors. In other words it is our people who are causing the most damage to our fighting capability. We must do something to drive down the number of accidents and incidents."

 

[daftandbarmy]

You know, I have to agree with him.

I have seen units and individuals do things on operations that were totally out to lunch. Many, at one time or another, could be accused of being far too complacent or switched off. Some of them got away with it, some were caught out by a cunning enemy and were killed or maimed for their folly. Unfortunately, there were also leaders at all levels who were incompetent and 'got people hurt'. I, of course, was not one of these!  ;D

A good kick in the arse might be what's needed to switch people back on and save some lives. I know that I and my peers had to do this occasionally, so why not the big cheese? Whether or not he had to go public with his comments is another question.

 

[starseed]

You know, I have to agree with him.

I have seen units and individuals do things on operations that were totally out to lunch. Many, at one time or another, could be accused of being far too complacent or switched off. Some of them got away with it, some were caught out by a cunning enemy and were killed or maimed for their folly. Unfortunately, there were also leaders at all levels who were incompetent and 'got people hurt'. I, of course, was not one of these!  ;D

A good kick in the arse might be what's needed to switch people back on and save some lives. I know that I and my peers had to do this occasionally, so why not the big cheese? Whether or not he had to go public with his comments is another question.

Oh I am not saying he is wrong, lol. My father was an RCD back in the 80s and some of the horror stories he told me about stupidity in the CF almost made me abandon my application (which is almost finished, hooray. They're holding me up over a non-life threatening, easily avoidable shellfish allergy). I might well defect if I ever see a truck in a combat zone labeled "DANGER: EXPLOSIVES"

But to say so in public is an entirely different matter. This is clearly something that should be dealt with internally. I would have thought that if anyone understood that, it'd be the British army - given that it is still very much an old boys club.

 

[geo]

Well... identifying a problem & calling a spade a spade is where you have to start - if you are planning on fixing things.
It might hurt the ego having your dirty laundry aired out in public - but it'll give a little bit of motivation to fix it /or prove them wrong.

One thing that is / was prevalent in the UK was that some hooligans, once caught and hauled before the judge for nefarious misdeeds - are/were given the choice of 5 years in the klink or 3 years in the army.  In the end, you get some rough & tough types who like drink & brawl... instead of doing their job.