Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[lopez]

Now, is any of that a reason why women shouldn't be in the infantry? No, of course not. But it is at least as relevant as an argument that women should be allowed into the combat arms because they are 'good listeners'.

further to what raven has said.

how does good listening skills improve combat capability for the infantry?
the role of the infantry is to seek out close and engage the enemy not to listen to them... though having no experience i may have misunderstood the role of the infantry.

roles where women's listening skills are relevant are already available to women currently.

having said that, if a women is physically capable why shouldn't they be allowed to perform any role?

just wanted to question the line of argument.

 

[Marc 1]

Fine in theory, although female engagement teams already do this (although it such a pain in the arse it is rarely worth it). However, in current operating theatres, this is actually a very good reason why women should not be in infantry units. How well do you think the ANA/ANP etc would respond to a female mentor? Not at all would be the answer. How well do you think local males (who comprise 99.5% of the locals talking to coalition) would respond to females? Again, poorly. You turn up to a shura with a female and I guarantee you that you will achieve nothing of value. The Taliban already call the coalition cowards for having females in uniform fighting with the men. This will only get worse if they are fighting alongside the men in the infantry.

Now, is any of that a reason why women shouldn't be in the infantry? No, of course not. But it is at least as relevant as an argument that women should be allowed into the combat arms because they are 'good listeners'.

I've never been to the sandpit so I'll concede that point in an Afghan context. How about a Timorese context? Solomon Islands?

 

[Marc 1]

further to what raven has said.

how does good listening skills improve combat capability for the infantry?
the role of the infantry is to seek out close and engage the enemy not to listen to them... though having no experience i may have misunderstood the role of the infantry.

roles where women's listening skills are relevant are already available to women currently.

having said that, if a women is physically capable why shouldn't they be allowed to perform any role?

just wanted to question the line of argument.

The point on listening skills is probably more geared toward the low intensity conflict - in a medium or high level conflict there will be bugger all chance of questioning anyone - then its all about pulling the trigger and all the usual arms corps skills.

This is my last on this - I've been out of the ARA for 18 years, I've put forward my points. A very few women will be suited physically and metally, if they are I see advantages to including them - unlike some others I don't forcast the end of any and all combat effectiveness because of their inclusion (if done correctly) in our arms corps.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'll make one last post on this and hopefully will be able to stay away.

The strange thing I find with the women in combat debate is the need that people have to contribute to a subject that they have no experience in what so ever.

It blows me away that people feel comfortable talking about putting a group of people in life threatening situations when they have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a women (or man) doesn't qualify you as someone who can provide valued input in the debate.

I don't see people feeling the need to provide their personal opinion on effective cancer treatments, no they leave that up to the specialists. But women in combat, "oh shit, my vagina is enough qualification". I'm sick of hearing on the radio and tv and seeing it on the Internet. It's an emotional topic not just because it's about gender equity ifs about people's lives. About men and women potentially being put in a riskier situation through a unthought out social policy.

This is a complex issue and people's lives are involved. Let's not rush out a decision without thinking it through.

Finally some points on the comments above.

Currently the ADFs number one enemy are religiously motivated males. They are our biggest threat. Timor is a holiday trip so i'll talk about Afghanistan. In country you are fighting males, young males, you are interacting with village elders who are males, you are training police and army who are males. Their culture is so oppressive if when we've tried to introduce females into Shura (elder meetings) they don't even turn up. We've tried female interpreters to talk to the women but the men don't even let their women leave the house and the Aghan police and army hate working with women. The either want to fuck them or kill them. If you think leering Aussies are bad these guys would walk onto mine if a female were in a tight top.

So the problem we have is the the enemy we are facing now requires us to have a sexist policy because they are sexist. If you had a 50/50 male/female infantry platoon (true gender equity) we'd be slaughtered on the battlefield. So yes we'd have equality in death too.

So when we invade lesbos (please god!) and you need women in combat, then let's do it. But in the forceable future we'll be fighting religious sexist males.

Think of it think way, when we design a tank we design it to kill a specific enemy. Its not designed to work in Australia. So the tool we use is fit for the purpose it's designed for.

And yes it's not fair but everyone bangs on about using groups for their specialities, perhaps for a lot of men their specialty is fighting wars.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just catching up on reading some LAND 400 documentation (now also known as Project Destrier – I guess someone in Army Modernisation Officer has been reading/watching Game of Thrones) and there was something I has missed before but I think Raven22 might have mentioned/alluded to. Which is the objective that in the new ACR [Armd Cav Regt] the three cav sqns (not including the tank sqn) are going to be reconfigurable between recce and APC missions (OMG gender neutral!). With each can sqn being able to carry out: close combat recce, intimate fire support and “close combat, high survivable lift” ie the APC role in a complex battlefield. There will be an allowance for a pause in combat to reconfigure between the roles, for eg. load a cav scout team for recce or two four man bricks of a dismounted combat team for lift.

The LAND 400 LCVS [Land Combat Vehicle System, aka IFV] has an objective capability to carry eight dismounts (at least four) in addition to the three man crew and weapon systems. With eight dismounts per vehicle each troop will have eight LCVS allowing for up to 64 dismounts to be carried by a single troop. Not quite the old APC sqn troop lifts a company but more than enough lift for a reinforced infantry platoon.

While the LCVS will be a common vehicle in the armd cav regt across recce and lift there will also be variants. Including a forward observer vehicle or mounted Joint Fires Team (JFT, aka JOST), repair and recovery capability (RAEME) and mobility and survivability capability (combat engineers). aEverything looks good except the timeframe: which is IOC until 2022! Only 20 years after the Army needed a new IFV.

 

[Volkodav]

Just catching up on reading some LAND 400 documentation (now also known as Project Destrier – I guess someone in Army Modernisation Officer has been reading/watching Game of Thrones) and there was something I has missed before but I think Raven22 might have mentioned/alluded to. Which is the objective that in the new ACR [Armd Cav Regt] the three cav sqns (not including the tank sqn) are going to be reconfigurable between recce and APC missions (OMG gender neutral!). With each can sqn being able to carry out: close combat recce, intimate fire support and “close combat, high survivable lift” ie the APC role in a complex battlefield. There will be an allowance for a pause in combat to reconfigure between the roles, for eg. load a cav scout team for recce or two four man bricks of a dismounted combat team for lift.

The LAND 400 LCVS [Land Combat Vehicle System, aka IFV] has an objective capability to carry eight dismounts (at least four) in addition to the three man crew and weapon systems. With eight dismounts per vehicle each troop will have eight LCVS allowing for up to 64 dismounts to be carried by a single troop. Not quite the old APC sqn troop lifts a company but more than enough lift for a reinforced infantry platoon.

While the LCVS will be a common vehicle in the armd cav regt across recce and lift there will also be variants. Including a forward observer vehicle or mounted Joint Fires Team (JFT, aka JOST), repair and recovery capability (RAEME) and mobility and survivability capability (combat engineers). aEverything looks good except the timeframe: which is IOC until 2022! Only 20 years after the Army needed a new IFV.

So is one Cav Sqn going to be tracked and the other wheeled or will they be identical?

I don't know about the regs but, during the mid to late 90s at least, LH Rec Sqns were able to rerole to APC Trps quite easily and vice versa. I imagine reg units with their higher level traing and experience would find it even easier to cover both roles.

 

[Raven22]

Which is the objective that in the new ACR [Armd Cav Regt] the three cav sqns (not including the tank sqn) are going to be reconfigurable between recce and APC missions (OMG gender neutral!). With each can sqn being able to carry out: close combat recce, intimate fire support and “close combat, high survivable lift” ie the APC role in a complex battlefield. There will be an allowance for a pause in combat to reconfigure between the roles, for eg. load a cav scout team for recce or two four man bricks of a dismounted combat team for lift.

That might be the ideal, but I'd give a fair amount of money it won't happen.

There is a big argument at the moment about whether the 'close-combat, high survivable lift' is a task or a role. Ie, whether it is just another task that can be performed by generic cavalry, or whether it is a role in itself that demands a specialised orbat.

Most people are of the belief that it is a role. I agree. The orbat required for 'ISR' cavalry just can't support the lift role - there simply aren't enough seats, the C2 isn't set up to support infantry and the vehicles will be too specialised to be wasted carting grunts around. To lift a battalion will need more than one squadron, which won't leave enough left to do all the other roles of the ACR.

I'd be willing to bet that of the three cav squadrons in the ACR, two will be 'ISR' squadrons, with one being a 'lift' squadon. Of course, the ISR squadrons will still be able lift infantry if required and the lift squadron will have utility outside of just driving dudes around, but there will be two distinct squadrons for two distinct roles.

 

[Waylander]

Wouldn't it be benefitial to use the M1 as a base for a recovery and repair vehicle? This would give every RAEME vehicle the ability to cope with all the vehicles of the armored cav.

Nevertheless getting proficient in all the roles envisioned for the Cav is quite an ambitious task for a force...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So is one Cav Sqn going to be tracked and the other wheeled or will they be identical?

There will be three cavalry squadrons and all will have the same type of vehicle. Given the protection requirements it will most likely be tracked.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is a big argument at the moment about whether the 'close-combat, high survivable lift' is a task or a role. Ie, whether it is just another task that can be performed by generic cavalry, or whether it is a role in itself that demands a specialised orbat.

Most people are of the belief that it is a role. I agree. The orbat required for 'ISR' cavalry just can't support the lift role - there simply aren't enough seats, the C2 isn't set up to support infantry and the vehicles will be too specialised to be wasted carting grunts around. To lift a battalion will need more than one squadron, which won't leave enough left to do all the other roles of the ACR.

Yeah but the seats issue is less of a dynamic with the kind of combat teams being formed. Its no longer cavalry troop + infantry company = mechanised infantry but rather take a cavalry troop, an infantry platoon, a local forces section, a combat engineer section, a MP team, an intelligence team and give it to a manoeuvre sub-unit HQ (cavalry or infantry) and there you have a combat team. Under such a grouping eight IFVs with 64 dismount seats will be adequate for lift. As for C2 the new vehicle will presumably support the BMS-D/CNR that the infantry are rolling with. For the human side of C2 since it is combat teaming rather than direct support the need for additional cavalry troop officers will be less.

Also since we are just talking about the capability of the armoured cavalry regiment with the IFV type vehicle. There will also be the PMVs and their replacements held within combat support units for their own protected mobility and the ARES cavalry regiments to provide additional supporting lift.

I'd be willing to bet that of the three cav squadrons in the ACR, two will be 'ISR' squadrons, with one being a 'lift' squadon. Of course, the ISR squadrons will still be able lift infantry if required and the lift squadron will have utility outside of just driving dudes around, but there will be two distinct squadrons for two distinct roles.

One of the key drivers for the basis of provisioning is manning levels. Troops of eight IFVs means roughly the same manning as current cavalry regiments and is the approved level by Plan Beersheba. If we have to build an infantry company lift capable APC troop (18 vehicles with 8 seats) then even with a two crew vehicle that will require 50% more manning in the troop. With a three crew vehicle it will require twice as many men in the troop. The alternative would be to acquire a tank APC like the Israeli Namer that can accommodate 12 dismounts per vehicle. Not a bad capability solution and you could make a pretty nasty IFV capability from a Namer for the close combat recce role. Forget 25-40mm guns, go for a 76mm and carry four dismounts in the back, all under tank level front and side armour...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wouldn't it be benefitial to use the M1 as a base for a recovery and repair vehicle? This would give every RAEME vehicle the ability to cope with all the vehicles of the armored cav.

Well the M88s won’t be going away. RAEME has liked having two levels of ARV within its units – the heavier and the lighter. They do things differently to most other armies including the use of combat vehicle level repair or “fitters” vehicles. Besides the recovery capability is just one of the requirements for Phase 2 of LAND 400 if need be it will be a separate vehicle type.

Nevertheless getting proficient in all the roles envisioned for the Cav is quite an ambitious task for a force...

They do it now...

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah but the seats issue is less of a dynamic with the kind of combat teams being formed. Its no longer cavalry troop + infantry company = mechanised infantry but rather take a cavalry troop, an infantry platoon, a local forces section, a combat engineer section, a MP team, an intelligence team and give it to a manoeuvre sub-unit HQ (cavalry or infantry) and there you have a combat team. Under such a grouping eight IFVs with 64 dismount seats will be adequate for lift. As for C2 the new vehicle will presumably support the BMS-D/CNR that the infantry are rolling with. For the human side of C2 since it is combat teaming rather than direct support the need for additional cavalry troop officers will be less.

Also since we are just talking about the capability of the armoured cavalry regiment with the IFV type vehicle. There will also be the PMVs and their replacements held within combat support units for their own protected mobility and the ARES cavalry regiments to provide additional supporting lift.



One of the key drivers for the basis of provisioning is manning levels. Troops of eight IFVs means roughly the same manning as current cavalry regiments and is the approved level by Plan Beersheba. If we have to build an infantry company lift capable APC troop (18 vehicles with 8 seats) then even with a two crew vehicle that will require 50% more manning in the troop. With a three crew vehicle it will require twice as many men in the troop. The alternative would be to acquire a tank APC like the Israeli Namer that can accommodate 12 dismounts per vehicle. Not a bad capability solution and you could make a pretty nasty IFV capability from a Namer for the close combat recce role. Forget 25-40mm guns, go for a 76mm and carry four dismounts in the back, all under tank level front and side armour...

The Namer would be great but I can't see it happening unless the US goes down that road with GCV. Although Israel is getting theirs built in the US arn't they? Would this open up a FMS option?

Domestic production of an evolved Namer would be interesting, imagine a hybrid drive using the AGT 1500 with perhaps a supper efficient turbo diesel APU to keep the batteries topped up.

Which 76mm would you go for? The Oto Melara 76/62 SAs GT4 version, or perhaps ,as we are talking an Israeli platform, the 60mm HVMS for something different?

The 76mm would make Vulcano an option.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Namer would be great but I can't see it happening unless the US goes down that road with GCV. Although Israel is getting theirs built in the US arn't they? Would this open up a FMS option?

Yeah the IDF awarded GDLS a contract to build 600 Namers at the Lima tank plant. So they would be available via FMS.

Domestic production of an evolved Namer would be interesting, imagine a hybrid drive using the AGT 1500 with perhaps a supper efficient turbo diesel APU to keep the batteries topped up.

I doubt we could build them here. I’ve been to Bendigo’s Bushmaster line and the Israeli Merkava/Namer line and the two are very, very different… But you could have them built in the USA up to a major component level (rolling hulls, etc) and ship them over for final integration including fitting Australian built components.

For a close combat recce version it would probably be more sensible to use the Merkava Mk 4 hull as the base. Lower height overall and better suited for a heavy turret. Still more than enough room for a 80 round (76mm) or >400 round (30-40mm) unit of fire and four dismounts plus ISR gear and huge armour weight. If you were buying a recce Merkava (Mk 5) and a lift Namer it would of course beg the question why not replace the M1A1 for a standard vehicle in the ACR?

If we were to Australianise the Namer then forget the gas turbine, it would be a huge job fitting one into the vehicle anyway. Just use the MTU MT881/883 depending on how much power you want. Already integrated and common with the SP155 (both K9 and PzH2000) and of course any Merkava Mk 4s you acquire for close combat recce and tank roles. The best option for an Australianising job is to replace the heavy spring coil suspension units with lighter hydro-pneumatic units. The saved weight could go into a new belly armour array to provide enhanced UBIED defence.

Which 76mm would you go for? The Oto Melara 76/62 SAs GT4 version, or perhaps ,as we are talking an Israeli platform, the 60mm HVMS for something different?

I would prefer the XM274 75mm CTA version developed in the 70s and 80s (used in the RDF/LT experimental light tank). Fired the same shell at the same velocity as the Oto gun/GT4 76mm but with a CTA casing meant it was very compact. Enabled burst fire without the huge weight of the naval Oto gun mounting. But if you had to stay with the OTS round then the GT4 is just the naval Oto gun customised for land use. You could use the autoloader from the XM8 AGS with >30 ready fire rounds and high (60 degree) elevation. The IMI 60mm HVMS is just a 76mm Oto gun shell necked down to 60mm to try and achieve super high velocity. The 76mm APDFS round is good enough to take down the frontal armour of a T55 at long range and since you will still have the 120mm guns of the tank squadron the 60mm is overkill.

I wrote a paper about the 75mm/76mm gun as a solution for complex warfighting a few years ago but it never saw the light of day. Should dig it up and update it. Basically the 76mm gun comes into its own as a direct fire of HE gun. You can fire three round bursts that basically wipe out almost anything. And they are cheap. It can also fire indirect for swarming ops and with the IR fuse is a very effective anti air asset.

The 76mm would make Vulcano an option.

I don’t know if the Vulcano would be too useful in a land environment but the radar guided 76mm could be useful as an organic C-RAM capability.

 

[Raven22]

Yeah but the seats issue is less of a dynamic with the kind of combat teams being formed. Its no longer cavalry troop + infantry company = mechanised infantry but rather take a cavalry troop, an infantry platoon, a local forces section, a combat engineer section, a MP team, an intelligence team and give it to a manoeuvre sub-unit HQ (cavalry or infantry) and there you have a combat team.

The requirement to combat team hasn't changed. You still need the ability to lift the entire infantry battalion or there is really not much point. Adding in all other enablers in combined arms team increases the need for lift, not decreases it. Otherwise, what are all the other infantry in the company doing? Walking? The need for close combat hasn't changed, hence the need to be able to take an entire rifle company to the forward pits under armour if required. Having a troop lift a platoon+ on anything but an opportune basis (ie, driving back to the wash point after an exercise) is a complete waste of resources.

As for C2 the new vehicle will presumably support the BMS-D/CNR that the infantry are rolling with. For the human side of C2 since it is combat teaming rather than direct support the need for additional cavalry troop officers will be less.

In that combat team you listed above, you said it would be commanded by either an infantry or cavalry sub-unit headquaters? If its an infantry HQ, what vehicles are they driving around in? They won't fit in the ones already listed, and even if they did, they wouldn't be fitted out as command vehicles so wouldn't be very useful anyway. If its a cavalry sub-unit HQ, I wouldn't want to be the OC commanding a single troop. I wouldn't want to be the troop leader with an OC there to tell me how to manoeuvre my troop either. If that's the case, what are the other two troops doing? If they're combat teamed as well, you have the same issue with lack of lift, but simply magnified.

One of the key drivers for the basis of provisioning is manning levels. Troops of eight IFVs means roughly the same manning as current cavalry regiments and is the approved level by Plan Beersheba. If we have to build an infantry company lift capable APC troop (18 vehicles with 8 seats) then even with a two crew vehicle that will require 50% more manning in the troop. With a three crew vehicle it will require twice as many men in the troop.

This is not an issue, as that extra manning already exists, it is simply currently allocated to the infantry battalions. You take the 200 M-113s and 200 PMVs off 5, 6, 7 and 8/9 RARs, and you have a lot of extra manning to fill the lift squadrons. Otherwise, you are asking the ACR to take on the role of lifting at least three battalions without any extra increase in manning, when even current manning is only just sufficient to carry out all the non-lift tasks of the ACR. Plan Beersheba has 12 RAAC sub-units. There are currently only 9 RAAC sub-units in the Army. The sub-units aren't any smaller. Basic maths tells us that the manning needs to be reallocated to make this happen. Once the manoeuvre force modernisation review is completed, you will likely see a change in manning allocations.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The requirement to combat team hasn't changed. You still need the ability to lift the entire infantry battalion or there is really not much point. Adding in all other enablers in combined arms team increases the need for lift, not decreases it. Otherwise, what are all the other infantry in the company doing? Walking?

Not deployed as in various single inf pltn combat teams that have been formed. Don’t get me wrong I agree that the MRMB needs two armd cav ISR sqns and a full battalion of lift but I’m just trying to rationalise the decision making that has us at the current point. Any battalion lift sqn is going to be quite big (200-300) and I don’t see RAInf giving up that many positions to raise two more such squadrons (in addition to B Sqn) as well as bring the tanks up to strength.

 

[Volkodav]

Not deployed as in various single inf pltn combat teams that have been formed. Don’t get me wrong I agree that the MRMB needs two armd cav ISR sqns and a full battalion of lift but I’m just trying to rationalise the decision making that has us at the current point. Any battalion lift sqn is going to be quite big (200-300) and I don’t see RAInf giving up that many positions to raise two more such squadrons (in addition to B Sqn) as well as bring the tanks up to strength.

The battalion lift could be a reserve role, have a reg coy lift (trp) with the rest provided by reserves imbedded in the ACR providing the rest of the APC / IFV Sqn. Not ideal but it is the easier of the two jobs and if there is a reg troop in the mix that should help lift standards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The battalion lift could be a reserve role, have a reg coy lift (trp) with the rest provided by reserves imbedded in the ACR providing the rest of the APC / IFV Sqn. Not ideal but it is the easier of the two jobs and if there is a reg troop in the mix that should help lift standards.

The lift requirement is for “close combat, high survivability" which really means something big and heavy able to keep on fighting in an IED intensive environment, which means an IFV type vehicle: with or without a two man turret. So I don’t think the ARES in the current army construct are up to the readiness and the training level required to provide such a capability on regular deployments and operate such a complex vehicle.

But it’s not the end of days. As Raven points out there is a strong debate to have a properly resourced and dedicated lift and ISR troops rather than a bastardised eight vehicle troop that is too big for one role and to small for the other. As the likely vehicle solution for this phase of LAND 400 is probably something like the FRES SV competitors (CV90/ASCOD) splitting the roles would enable the vehicle types to be split into a turreted 30mm/40mm gun ISR vehicle and a RCWS HMG/AGL lift vehicle. Though I would like a Merkava/Namer solution for when a 40 tonne GVW is just not enough and you need 60 tonnes!

 

[Raven22]

Not deployed as in various single inf pltn combat teams that have been formed. Don’t get me wrong I agree that the MRMB needs two armd cav ISR sqns and a full battalion of lift but I’m just trying to rationalise the decision making that has us at the current point.

It's hardly a decision. What you read was a draft user requirement that is already six months old. The beast is constantly evolving, and a confirmed ACR orbat won't be available until after all the trials and simulation, sometime around 2016.

Any battalion lift sqn is going to be quite big (200-300) and I don’t see RAInf giving up that many positions to raise two more such squadrons (in addition to B Sqn) as well as bring the tanks up to strength.

The infantry won't have a choice. There is a pool of available manpower (around 7000) for the manoeuvre units - it is up to the manoeuvre FMR/Plan Beersheba to allocate the personnel to units. Come date X, there will no longer be a position for M113 and PMV crewman or the ech to go with them within the battalions, so unless the battalions can invent a couple of hundred new positions, those slots are going somewhere else.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It's hardly a decision. What you read was a draft user requirement that is already six months old.

So something that needs a total of eight stars (one three, one two and three ones) to sign of on it isn’t considered ‘decision making’. Come on… It’s the info that has been feeding Plan Beersheba to Ministerial sign off point. Of course with the ACR with LAND 400 IOC in 2022 it’s about as concrete as sand getting blown of the top of a dune in some movie about the Saraha.

One thing that will most likely be reasonably locked after Ministerial signoff is the manning of nine troops each of 24 AFV crewmen. This will be the constraint moving forward into more detailed determination of the ACR and LAND 400 requirements via the next round of simulation. But even then it provides some leeway. For example reducing the six ISR troops to six vehicles would enable 36 AFV crewmen per lift troop. Which is enough for 18 two crew APCs with eight seats per vehicle a lift of 144 dismounts per troop.

The infantry won't have a choice. There is a pool of available manpower (around 7000) for the manoeuvre units - it is up to the manoeuvre FMR/Plan Beersheba to allocate the personnel to units. Come date X, there will no longer be a position for M113 and PMV crewman or the ech to go with them within the battalions, so unless the battalions can invent a couple of hundred new positions, those slots are going somewhere else.

I’m sure the three ACRs will be allocated enough personnel for the nine troops of 24 AFV crewmen each. But beyond that I don’t see there being many free billets. Not with each MIB needing 40 additional soldiers for their ninth platoon which I’m sure the RAInf will fill before they let positions flow to the ACRs. Then there is also 8/9 RAR’s third rifle company. That’s 400 positions form the APC/PMV crewmen that RAInf won’t give up. But that still allows for enough positions for the 27 cavalry troops and nine tank troops.

 

[Raven22]

So something that needs a total of eight stars (one three, one two and three ones) to sign of on it isn’t considered ‘decision making’. Come on… It’s the info that has been feeding Plan Beersheba to Ministerial sign off point.

That's backwards - Plan Beersheba is feeding the Land 400 requirement, not the other way around. Unit orbats still haven't been signed off, only the brigade orbats. Either way, what's signed off now will have very limited effect on what actually happens.

One thing that will most likely be reasonably locked after Ministerial signoff is the manning of nine troops each of 24 AFV crewmen. This will be the constraint moving forward into more detailed determination of the ACR and LAND 400 requirements via the next round of simulation. But even then it provides some leeway. For example reducing the six ISR troops to six vehicles would enable 36 AFV crewmen per lift troop. Which is enough for 18 two crew APCs with eight seats per vehicle a lift of 144 dismounts per troop.

Cavalry troops will have more than just crewmen - they will also have integral dismounts (ie, scouts). Any planning as to manning needs to include this. Otherwise, who is manning all these fancy surveillance suites, UAVs, GSR, UGVs etc that are supposed to be part of the CAFS? The troop structure, or the manpower, still hasn't been signed off by anyone.

I’m sure the three ACRs will be allocated enough personnel for the nine troops of 24 AFV crewmen each. But beyond that I don’t see there being many free billets. Not with each MIB needing 40 additional soldiers for their ninth platoon which I’m sure the RAInf will fill before they let positions flow to the ACRs. Then there is also 8/9 RAR’s third rifle company. That’s 400 positions form the APC/PMV crewmen that RAInf won’t give up. But that still allows for enough positions for the 27 cavalry troops and nine tank troops.

Again, the infantry won't have a choice. It's not like the infantry HOC and RAAC HOC are arguing this across a table, and that will be that. The decision will be made at the top as to the best way to allocate the available manpower, and everyone will click their heels together and crack on. The RAAC isn't going to grow from 8-9 sub-units to 12 sub-units without an increase in manpower.

Even the publicly available presentations on Plan Beersheba show an ACR stength of 631 and an infantry battalion strength of 665. That is an enlargement in armoured numbers and a significant decrease in battalion size. If you take 3 ACRs, 7 battalions and ~400 soldiers for the SOI and SOA, you get very close to the ~7000 manning cap.