Secret Plan to disband Gurkhas?

[CougarKing]

I really hope it doesn't really come to this.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/80026/Secret-plan-to-disband-Gurkhas

SECRET PLAN TO DISBAND GURKHAS 

Medals belonging to Gurkha soldier Ratna Tharpa
Thursday January 15,2009
By Martyn Brown and John Ingham  Have your say(46)
THE Army wants to scrap the 200-year-old Gurkha regiment over claims it will cost too much to treat its veterans properly, it emerged yesterday.

Military top brass have warned that the historic brigade could be disbanded if the Government allows thousands more former Gurkhas to settle in Britain.

They say that the introduction of full residency and pension rights for the veterans and their dependants could leave the Ministry of Defence and British taxpayers facing a bill of up to £3billion.

Campaigners last night blasted the plans, which could see the end of the British Army’s most loyal and heroic regiments.

The loss of the Gurkhas would be a body blow for the Armed Forces 
Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox


Joanna Lumley, 62, whose father fought alongside Gurkhas in the Second World War, accused the MoD of “scaremongering”.

“Even in the unlikely event that the MoD’s figure is correct,” she added, “all these retired Gurkhas have earned the right to settle here by serving and fighting in our Army.”

Ms Lumley last year joined forces with the Daily Express crusade seeking better rights for Gurkhas and delivering a 250,000-signature petition to Gordon Brown demanding justice for the selfless warriors.

She said: “The idea that they will be a drain on the NHS is offensive – these people were prepared to fight and die for the NHS. Many of them actually had money deducted from their pay to help pay for it. They have as much right as any British citizen to use it.”


Under new rules due to be announced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the next few weeks, the rights of ex-Gurkhas are expected to be widened significantly. All veterans will be allowed to settle in Britain and receive a full Army pension.

The existing system denies entry to Gurkhas who retired before 1997 and awards them only a third of the pension given to British ex-servicemen.

But one high-ranking defence official said: “This could make the Gurkhas too expensive for the Army.” It is estimated up to 50,000 Gurkha veterans and dependants could apply to come to the UK from Nepal and other parts of Asia.

Tory MP and former infantry officer Patrick Mercer said: “The great advantage of the Gurkhas always used to be that they were plentiful and they were cheap. But with the new agreements that they are getting they are rapidly becoming more and more expensive.”

He said the Gurkhas were being saved at the moment because of a recruitment shortfall in the Army.

“But if recruiting in Britain increases, the justification for the Gurkhas will become more untenable,” he added.

Former Army major Charles Heyman, who served with Gurkhas in Hong Kong, said: “The MoD has been talking about the cost of the Gurkhas for at least 15 years. But even when they have got new rights in common with other British soldiers, I believe that the extra cost of a Gurkha would not be more than five per cent.”

Axing the Gurkhas would mean the loss of about 3,500 highly-trained soldiers at a time when the Army is seriously overstretched.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: “The people of Britain should be enormously grateful to the Gurkhas for their courage and commitment in defence of this country. The loss of the Gurkhas would be a body blow for the Armed Forces.”

Tory MP and Daily Express columnist Ann Widdecombe said: “This is vindictive. The numbers of Gurkhas coming here are a drop in the ocean compared to the number of illegal immigrants settling here year after year and it is time we got our priorities right.”

Laxmi Sharma, of the United British Gurkha Ex-Servicemen’s Association, said: “They are looking for some stupid excuse to avoid giving Gurkha veterans their deserving rights. They want us to defend their country for free.”

An MoD spokesperson refused to confirm or deny any plans to axe the Gurhkas but said: “The MoD fully supports the Home Office and we are working closely with them as they develop revised immigration rules for Gurkhas.”

 

[Yrys]

"The Army wants to scrap the 200-year-old Gurkha regiment over claims
it will cost too much to treat its veterans properly, it emerged yesterday."

Well, it seems to me  that wether they disband the Gurkhas or not, the actual
veterans will still be veterans, so almost the same number will ask to be traited
more fairly ...

Reduction of costs would only apply to future veterans that wouldn't exist...
So maybe less that they are thinking ?

 

[tomahawk6]

The Labor Government are a bunch of twits. Pretty soon they wont be able to afford the British vets so they gonna disband the military ? The Gurkhas are a very cost effective unit that has seen a steady erosian in their strength since the Brits hauled down the Union Jack in Hong Kong.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering the useless F**ks they currently let into the UK (and Canada) why complain about the cost of looking after someone willing to give their life for you? I would be proud to have a Gurkha as a neighbour and hopefully a friend.

 

[Rifleman62]

If you search "visible minorities", several threads pop up. Accordingly, the CF has problems attracting and retaining visible minorities. The CF needs to grow and stabilize. How about a battalion or two of Gurkha's? "Transfer" from the British Army to the CF. Bring the families of course. Form a Gurkha cadet corps where ever they are stationed.

I agree with Colin P.

This would be a multiculturalism initiative I would happy support.

I was lucky to have some personal experience with Gurkha's attached to the RGJ during a Medicine Man serial.

Anyone read John Masters?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

John Master's was my first introduction to them.

 

[geo]

Some twit is complaining about the Gurkhas because they were cheating em for all those years.  Lower pay/pension/National Health benifits.  Hire em, train em, use em & send em back to the boondocks once you're through with em.... real class act that.

Considering all the immigration that has happened in the UK from the Indian sub continent, the UK should rethink their immigration policies.... Ask that any Indian/Pakistani/Nepalese immigrant should serve XX years in the military upon settling in the UK.

 

[starseed]

And here I was thinking it'd be a good thing when they finally won the right to settle in the UK. It would be a real shame if the BA dropped it's Gurkha units, they are some of the toughest and scariest soldiers on the planet and I would definitely not want to be on the wrong side of the trench with them. They're also one of the few non-british units that's never mutinied, including during the 1857 indian mutiny (they were part of the Indian army then)

Then again I am not sure I buy the credibility of this claim. I read on the Telegraph probably no more than a week ago that they're planning to use groups of Gurkhas to patch the manpower holes in their home-grown regiments. Granted, things can change...

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4284228/Army-calls-in-Gurkhas-to-plug-front-line-gaps-due-to-manning-crisis.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

This plan is not new and has never been very secret.

Since the Borneo campaign was concluded in the 60s, the UK has been looking for ways to whittle down their Gurkha units for a variety of reasons including difficulties integrating them into the normal arms plot for the infantry and cost. Gurkhas aren't very useful in domestic COIN or fully mechanized ops for obvious reasons.

They're great troops, but still have limitations related to their origins in the 3rd world - or so the British believe anyways.

 

[medaid]

Some twit is complaining about the Gurkhas because they were cheating em for all those years.  Lower pay/pension/National Health benifits.  Hire em, train em, use em & send em back to the boondocks once you're through with em.... real class act that.

How's that changed at all since UK first found out that ships can carry them to places?

 

[starseed]

Since the Borneo campaign was concluded in the 60s, the UK has been looking for ways to whittle down their Gurkha units for a variety of reasons including difficulties integrating them into the normal arms plot for the infantry and cost. Gurkhas aren't very useful in domestic COIN or fully mechanized ops for obvious reasons.

This is true, but you can't always depend on being able to operate your mechanized infantry as mechanized infantry. Take the Falklands as an example...they ship over there as a naval task force with only 4 chinooks for heavy lift. The Argentinians bomb the stuffing out of the ship carrying them, by pure luck one was just lifting off and survives but they're down to one heavy lift heli + a fleet of Sea Kings. To make matters worse, the only vehicles they brought that can handle the terrain well are their Scimitars (light recon tank/ARV, crewed by Blues and Royals) and some Volvo half-tracks.

Their entire helicopter fleet ends up having to be used for supply and moving guns around, their plans for heli insertions and troop movements have to be scrapped and the men end up yomping across the whole bloody island. The brits got lucky in that they had 3 commando brigade (Royal Marines) with 2 battalions of Paras attached already there, any other troops would've had a hell of a time handling the marches and conditions they had to put up with. Some more conventional troops (5 brigade, being a few British regular battalions and I think one Gurkha battalion that didn't show up till Port Stanley had already fallen) showed up later and ended up sitting around the harbour waiting for helicopters to move them.

I'm not saying the Gurkhas are economical to keep, because I honestly don't know - but I think there is a real place for troops in that mold and they are frankly amazing soldiers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree with you there. Unfortunately sentiment doesn't pay the bills in the UK anymore, if it ever did, as the many recent regimental amalgamations proved.

I was astonished at how paranoid even the Royal Marines were (and still are) about getting the chop. There is quite a strong argument in the UK to support the proposal that there is no need for 'semi-special' amphibious infantry. All you need is the ships, a small cadre of specially trained technicians to run the landing craft, and regular infantry who can go through amphibious training. You know, like the 3rd Cdn Div in WW2.

I, of course, was always quite keen to point out that Canada mounts a ceremonial guard in Ottawa with reservists and has no need of several battalions of regular Guards regiments to do their 'tick tock' soldiering in the national capital. Of course, I was regarded as a heretic and narrowly avoided being burned at the stake.  ;D

 

[starseed]

I agree with you there. Unfortunately sentiment doesn't pay the bills in the UK anymore, if it ever did, as the many recent regimental amalgamations proved.

I was astonished at how paranoid even the Royal Marines were (and still are) about getting the chop. There is quite a strong argument in the UK to support the proposal that there is no need for 'semi-special' amphibious infantry. All you need is the ships, a small cadre of specially trained technicians to run the landing craft, and regular infantry who can go through amphibious training. You know, like the 3rd Cdn Div in WW2.

I, of course, was always quite keen to point out that Canada mounts a ceremonial guard in Ottawa with reservists and has no need of several battalions of regular Guards regiments to do their 'tick tock' soldiering in the national capital. Of course, I was regarded as a heretic and narrowly avoided being burned at the stake.  ;D

You'd probably be touchy too if you had to spend 3 days cleaning kit for every 1 you spend using it. Like I said my dad was an RCD, but he almost got talked into the GG's horse guards because he already knew how to ride. They look fantastic but my god it's a lot of work.

I think that attitude largely among the RM disappeared after the Falklands (just read a book on it, if you were wondering why I keep referencing it lol). Modern amphibious warfare is most definitely a skill set you have to train for. There was one incident in thhat campaign where the brits sent a landing ship (HMS Galahad, not a full size amphib. assault ship, one of the smaller ones) to offload some conventional infantry (Welsh Guards) at a bay called Fitzroy. If you aren't familiar with the campaign, the brits seriously underestimated the Argentine air force and lost like 5 or 6 destroyers and frigates, and their SAMs got damaged by saltwater and were out of commission for like a week. Anyway, they're offloading these Welsh guards and a whole bunch of equipment without air cover (in a campaign full of calculated risks, this was one that didn't go well) and they get arguing about who's going on one landing craft or another (because in peacetime they would never put ammo and men on the same one for fear of it getting hit). The net result is it takes them like 3 or 4 hours to offload 2 or 3 companies of men + equipment, by which time the Argentine air force shows up. 2 Mirages drop a bomb (which doesn't explode, the argentines had been sold the wrong kind of fuses by the Americans so they didn't always explode on impact. The brits had a number of ships who got an unexploded bomb pass right through the hull and lodge in the ship, if they exploded...well you can figure that one out).

However, as they were still figuring out who went on which craft, the bomb set off a bunch of the ordinance still sitting on deck and killed/wounded half a company of men. As one might expect from the RM, they acquitted themselves very well throughout the campaign and I don't think there has been much talk of axing them since =D

EDIT: And I TOTALLY agree about amalgamations. They amalgamated the Scots Guards (oldest regiment in the british army!!!) and the Black Watch...Argyles and Sutherlands (my grandfather's regiment during the first world war)...almost everything with a long and distinguished history, it seems.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You'd probably be touchy too if you had to spend 3 days cleaning kit for every 1 you spend using it. Like I said my dad was an RCD, but he almost got talked into the GG's horse guards because he already knew how to ride. They look fantastic but my god it's a lot of work.

I think that attitude largely among the RM disappeared after the Falklands. Modern amphibious warfare is most definitely a skill set you have to train for. There was one incident in the falklands campaign where the brits sent a landing ship (HMS Galahad, not a full size amphib. assault ship, one of the smaller ones) to offload some conventional infantry (Welsh Guards) at a bay called Fitzroy. If you aren't familiar with the campaign, the brits seriously underestimated the Argentine air force and lost like 5 or 6 destroyers and frigates, and their SAMs got damaged by saltwater and were out of commission for like a week. Anyway, they're offloading these Welsh guards and a whole bunch of equipment without air cover (in a campaign full of calculated risks, this was one that didn't go well) and they get arguing about who's going on one landing craft or another (because in peacetime they would never put ammo and men on the same one for fear of it getting hit). The net result is it takes them like 3 or 4 hours to offload 2 or 3 companies of men + equipment, by which time the Argentine air force shows up. 2 Mirages drop a bomb (which doesn't explode, the argentines had been sold the wrong kind of fuses by the Americans so they didn't always explode on impact. The brits had a number of ships who got an unexploded bomb pass right through the hull and lodge in the ship, if they exploded...well you can figure that one out).

However, as they were still figuring out who went on which craft, the bomb set off a bunch of the ordinance still sitting on deck and killed/wounded half a company of men. As one might expect from the RM, they acquitted themselves very well throughout the campaign and I don't think there has been much talk of axing them since =D

I know alot about these battles.

Sorry it's not in my profile, but I spent 8 years in the Parachute Regiment, 2 of those on exchange with 45 Cdo, between 1981 and 89. We studied these battles in various courses and, although I was not in the Falklands, I have served with marines, Paras and guardsmen who were at all of the engagements you mention, and have heard all the gory bits over various beers. I have jumped on and off dozens of various sized landing craft, assault ships and helicopters with groups large and small in arctic and temperate climates. The reality is that you do not need to be a trained Royal Marine to get on and off landing craft or a helicopter.

This is a fact acknowledged by the Royal Marines themselves. Consequently, they worry daily that 'the Corps' is in peril and they work hard to prove their worth to a sceptical and economy seeking Ministry of Defence, and Royal Navy establishment, on a daily basis. MoD makes constant plans to cut various costs, some of which include doing away with, or downsizing, their amphibious assault capabilities a.k.a. getting rid of all or some of the marines. Falkalnds or no, there have never been any guarantees in the British forces (unless, of course, you are a Guardsman or a Green Jacket  ).

The lesson is that nothing is safe and soldiers must do what they're told by their political masters, as Canada's unfortunate experience with the disbandment of the Airborne regiment proved.

 

[starseed]

Oh, well cool. I guess there isn't a whole lot I can tell you about it then but you'll never stop me being long winded over the interweb

I've actually been looking for someone to ask about the Canadian Paras...is CSOR just a reconstituted Parachute regiment under another name?

 

[HItorMiss]

is CSOR just a reconstituted Parachute regiment under another name?

No

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oh, well cool. I guess there isn't a whole lot I can tell you about it then but you'll never stop me being long winded over the interweb

I've actually been looking for someone to ask about the Canadian Paras...is CSOR just a reconstituted Parachute regiment under another name?

A search will reveal a number of threads on the subject.

You can start here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,73.0.html in the CANSOFCOM Forum

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[MikeL]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/t...ive-115875-21513094/

Gurkhas face axe after Joanna Lumley win makes them to expensive

Up to 800 Gurkha troops could be axed from the Army as part of a series of savage defence cuts.

An entire battalion of the Nepalese troops is expected to go.

The cut would be part of a wider slashing of the £34billion defence budget, which has risen steadily since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The dramatic improvements in Gurkha pay and pension rights in the past two years mean it is too expensive to maintain two infantry battalions.

The regiment only survived cuts five years ago because their poor pay and pensions made them good value for money. But senior officers say that new rulings giving them better pensions mean they are vulnerable in a wide-ranging defence review.

In the High Court earlier this year all Gurkhas won the right to be allowed to remain in Britain after serving - and their pay was brought up to the same level as the regular Army. The campaign led by actress Joanna Lumley had forced Gordon Brown into a humiliating U-turn.

But it left the Government with a huge bill for improving pensions for those settling in Britain. Last night a senior military source said: "If it comes to cutting infantry battalions, the Gurkhas are now No1 on the list.

"They were only saved from the axe in the last defence cuts because they were seen as being fantastic value for money. Although they are very well-recruited and very good soldiers, they are now no less expensive than any other unit.

The fact that all Gurkhas and their dependents can now remain in Britain after leaving the Army means they will get full pensions. Before, they would return to Nepal, where their pensions are lower because of the lower cost of living. The bill could be as much as £1billion - making them an expensive unit to maintain."

The Brigade of Gurkhas - motto: "Better to die than be a coward" - is made up of 3,500 Nepalese fighting men, who still carry their traditional kukri knives.

It was formed in 1947, although Nepalese Gurkhas have served Britain for nearly 200 years. It is based in Kent and has two 800-strong infantry units - the 1st and 2nd Battalions, The Royal Gurkhas Rifles.

The rest support the infantry, doing logistics and engineering. They will be redeployed elsewhere in the Army.