No change to British military parachute training

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that there will be no change to the number of British military parachute training courses as a result of the Strategic Defence Review’s position on airborne capabilities.

In a written answer to Ben Obese-Jecty MP, Defence Minister Al Carns addressed questions concerning the potential impact of a focus on a single battalion group on the availability of parachute training. The questions covered both the Basic Parachute Course and the All Arms Pre-Parachute Selection course, which are central to maintaining airborne capability within the British Army.

Carns said: “The Strategic Defence Review position on military parachuting capabilities represents no change to the current Defence parachuting provision.” He added that “there is no anticipated change to the number of All Arms Pre-Parachute Selection courses or the Basic Parachute Course.”

The Basic Parachute Course provides the qualification required for soldiers to earn their parachute wings and serve in airborne roles. The All Arms Pre-Parachute Selection course acts as the assessment stage for personnel from across the Armed Forces who wish to attempt parachute training. Together, the two courses underpin the UK’s military parachuting capability.

The minister’s response makes clear that the overall volume of these courses will remain consistent with existing provision. No adjustment to course numbers is anticipated as a result of the Strategic Defence Review’s conclusions on parachuting capabilities.

Military parachuting remains a specialist skill set within Defence, requiring structured selection, training and ongoing proficiency. No further detail was provided in the written response regarding course scheduling, capacity or throughput beyond the confirmation that there is no expected change in numbers.

MOD denies claims of airborne forces cuts

Previously, we reported that there were to be cuts to this capability after the department stated in a previous Parliamentary Question response that the Government had “accepted the recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review in full” and would publish a Defence Investment Plan setting out the plan for “its implementation.”

Our interpretation centred on that reference to implementation. The term is forward looking and denotes putting a recommendation into effect. If the airborne construct described by the SDR already reflected the existing position, there would be no substantive change to implement. The wording therefore suggested that alignment with the review would require adjustment, otherwise the reference to implementation would have little practical meaning.

That said, as we noted at the time, this was an interpretation of policy language rather than confirmation of a specific structural decision. In this case, it appears that our reading was not correct.