CJEF

News and discussion threads concerning defence personnel and their units.
Post Reply
BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

CJEF

Post by BlueD954 »

Please shift if this is the wrong section...

https://www.joint-forces.com/exercise-n ... bury-plain

British, French and American paratroopers have given a powerful demonstration of how they can go side-by-side into battle by air.

Some 20 helicopters carried the 1,300-strong 2 PARA Battlegroup into action today (Fri 4 Dec) on Exercise WESSEX STORM. Mounting at Keevil airfield on Salisbury Plain, troops, vehicles and stores were lifted by Royal Air Force Chinook and Puma support helicopters, protected by the sensors and weapons of Army Air Corps Wildcat reconnaissance helicopters and Apache attack helicopters. The multinational force was dropped off to assault Imber village, capturing it to use as a base for further missions on the windswept training area.

The training is about confirming the 2 PARA Battlegroup’s skills and readiness to serve as the lead infantry unit within 16 Air Assault Brigade, the British Army’s global response force. Some 150 troops from the French 2e Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes and a 40-strong platoon from the US Army’s 2nd Battalion, 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment are taking part. Their involvement is about growing understanding of each other’s capabilities and tactics, meaning our airborne forces are better prepared to operate together on future operations.

Today’s mission – the largest British-led air assault since Operation MOSHTARAK in Afghanistan in February 2010 – comes as the six-week long manoeuvres (2 Nov-12 Dec) reach their validation phase. The Battlegroup is being challenged to beat back the invasion of an ally by a hostile neighbour, fighting both conventional military units and militia-type forces. Before launching the air assault, troops had parachuted in to capture Keevil, with additional personnel, stores and vehicles delivered by RAF and French Armee de l’Air A400M transport aircraft.

The 2 PARA Battlegroup is built around the paratroopers of Colchester-based 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, supported by signallers, engineers, artillery, medics and logistics specialists from 16 Air Assault Brigade. It is training to be ready to deploy at short notice on operations around the world.

J. Tattersall

Re: CJEF

Post by J. Tattersall »

There are many things which stand out about the UK-French CJEF. Here's just a few to start an argument:

1) For two similar nations' armed forces it has taken a decade to get this far. This likey demonstrates the complexity of the endeavour and is a lesson for those in the EU who think it'll be somehow straightforward to set up an integrated EU force.

2) It has effectively leap-frogged (no pun intended) the EU's battlegroup concept which after 15 years struggles to have more than one 1,500 strong battle-group at readiness.

3) Whether or not it is ever deployed is probably secondary. In effect it's a force in being that contributes to modern deterrence, but also allows mutual learning of lessons between UK and France.

4) It's more than just the paras (and les paras). While airborne forces make the headlines the J in CJEF indicates a joint force with not just land but combined air, maritime and logistics components. The only other European force outside the C2 of NATO to seriously do this is. The nine nation UK led Joint Expeditionary Force.

In short there's lots of lessons for Europe to learn from the CJEF (& JEF) not least that setting up a credible international force outside the structures of NATO takes a lot of time, effort and dedication.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: CJEF

Post by BlueD954 »

I believe CJEF is not just for NATO area of operations.

Hope it does not stop the expansion of UK airborne units.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CJEF

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Good to see interest in the topic/ initiative that was started with much fanfare.
J. Tattersall wrote:For two similar nations' armed forces it has taken a decade to get this far. This likey demonstrates the complexity of the endeavour
or waning political will and alignment?
J. Tattersall wrote:the EU's battlegroup concept which after 15 years struggles to have more than one 1,500 strong battle-group at readiness.
The rotating BG has always been the target. The struggle comes from 'framework nations' losing interest in making the much bigger investment needed for being in that role for each rotation... simple for the reason that they are starting to see the investment as wasted - due to the lack of the will to actually use the BGs
J. Tattersall wrote:other European force outside the C2 of NATO to seriously do this is. The nine nation UK led Joint Expeditionary Force.
A good initiative. So much parallel to NATO that one must wonder whether the UK (its initiator) saw it as a precursor for the subsequently concluded 'hosting of NATO forces' agreements by those participating countries that are not NATO members... or an insurance scheme against NATO becoming a lame duck due to an isolationist US president (Trump was not in the picture; this was long before) or even falling apart after a fracticious Brexit
- in practical terms, many of the UK units allocated are triple-hatted: to JEF, CJEF and NATO
- which takes us nicely to the next point
BlueD954 wrote:CJEF is not just for NATO area of operations
It is exactly for things other than Article IV, and assumes that there is a benefit from being able to react more quickly (only bilateral agreement required) than what it would take NATO to agree on any out-of-area operation
- JEF has a strong overlap with what NATO plans for and would be likely to do on a 'drop of the hat' time scale.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: CJEF

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: or waning political will and alignment?
Personally I don't detect that. There its the added complexity of the UK' s recovery from Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with restructuring post the 2010 SDSR. In France there's the problem of having to support a 5,000 - 6,000 strong intervention in Mali while keeping 10,000 troops on the streets of French cities for anti-terror duties. As I understand it doing these has effectively hollowed out its own two divisional army structure and reduced its capacity to act elsewhere. In effect it's having the similar problems to the ones the UK has had but with its onset starting a few years later.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CJEF

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:Personally I don't detect that.
I hope you are right, because the initiative is just what needs to be in place (the joint nuclear testing half of the same initiative is nearing completion, whereas on the (naval) missiles side of things there have been at least timing, if not also other, differences).
J. Tattersall wrote:the added complexity of the UK' s recovery from Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with restructuring post the 2010 SDSR.
Neither have touched the Paras and the RM restructuring is of later origin. Of course there are many other components to the joint force, but as for being quick 'off the blocs' these two will always play an important role.

What I forgot to mention is that of course also NATO's very-high readiness force and allocations for it - even when not in the lead role - have emerged since CJEF concept was forged
... we might be able to find a unit with four hats (and if parts of it happen to have just landed in Mali, add the blue beret)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply