Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[rand0m]

Another question, and sorry to interrupt the current chat.

On defencejobs I've been looking into the 'Fire Fighter/Emergency Responder', I also see the RAAF have a similar position. In regards to the Army, is anyone able to provide more insight or know anybody who is/or has been in this role?

 

[Focus-AS]

Another question, and sorry to interrupt the current chat.

On defencejobs I've been looking into the 'Fire Fighter/Emergency Responder', I also see the RAAF have a similar position. In regards to the Army, is anyone able to provide more insight or know anybody who is/or has been in this role?

Army Aviation elements use soldiers from the Incident Response Regiment (although their location may have changed as of Dec 12) when scrub. All RAE badged.

On barracks it's usually 000 or RAAF support depending where the unit is (do RAAF support 7 RAR if needed?).

 

[Raven22]

Most large Army bases have Army firefighters. Don't know what unit they belong to but they're all RAE. From what I understand its the most boring job in the Army. Nothing ever happens.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Historically the need for Army fire-fighters came from the establishment of a stand-alone Army aviation capability. So air force things needed to be replicated like airfield crash response and police with dog patrols. But of course air traffic control being an officer billet the RAAF kept that! In order to make the capability sustainable it was expanded to squadron sized and given the job of nuclear, chemical and biological cleanup. Which apparently happens less often than Army aircraft crashing at Oakey. They could deploy to training areas in support of live fires and put out secondary bushfires and be useful but nooooo…. Since the IRR has focused on the war role of providing CIED capability to SOF apparently they’ve been kicked out of this regiment as it became the SOER. Who knows where they are now?

 

[t68]

Not really sure on what section to put this, Army or Airforce.

I was reading elsewhere that AAAvn is have a hard time with pilot numbers with experience members are separating in numbers which is having an impact on platform availability (no direct source on this)

It was brought up (elsewhere) that Army Aviation should revert back to the RAAF control where in times gone buy that they would have dual qualified personnel able to make up numbers, which they can cover in times of a shortfall till more suitable qualified members up to speed., the logic sounded fine to me but having no experience in this area was not sure of the case.

It was also stated by freeing Army from its obligations from Aviation it can concentrate on more pressing issues like SPG, but the way I see it no matter who controls the assets the funding will follow. We are seeing a more Joint force (purple force) with the LHD with personnel from all three services on board is it time to hand back the helicopters from Army and if that’s the case should the RAN follow suit?

Some are suggesting because of our size and limitations, that the ADF cannot and should not have 3 separate Airforce, should the RAAF do what it does best and control aviation assets, after all the primary job of the Airforce is to support the Army/Navy winning the land/sea battle weather it’s by helicopter or fast jet. But on the other hand helicopters are a fundamental part of Army Orbat for Air Assault and land maneuver, should it be Army supporting Army or Airforce supporting Army/Navy?

 

[Raven22]

Not really sure on what section to put this, Army or Airforce.

I was reading elsewhere that AAAvn is have a hard time with pilot numbers with experience members are separating in numbers which is having an impact on platform availability (no direct source on this)

It was brought up (elsewhere) that Army Aviation should revert back to the RAAF control where in times gone buy that they would have dual qualified personnel able to make up numbers, which they can cover in times of a shortfall till more suitable qualified members up to speed., the logic sounded fine to me but having no experience in this area was not sure of the case.

It was also stated by freeing Army from its obligations from Aviation it can concentrate on more pressing issues like SPG, but the way I see it no matter who controls the assets the funding will follow. We are seeing a more Joint force (purple force) with the LHD with personnel from all three services on board is it time to hand back the helicopters from Army and if that’s the case should the RAN follow suit?

Some are suggesting because of our size and limitations, that the ADF cannot and should not have 3 separate Airforce, should the RAAF do what it does best and control aviation assets, after all the primary job of the Airforce is to support the Army/Navy winning the land/sea battle weather it’s by helicopter or fast jet. But on the other hand helicopters are a fundamental part of Army Orbat for Air Assault and land maneuver, should it be Army supporting Army or Airforce supporting Army/Navy?

At the moment Army has no real problem with pilot numbers - there are currently more pilots than airframes to fly. Which is really more of an indictment on platform choice than any real success in generating pilots. Recruitment for pilots has actually been slown down.

 

[Volkodav]

With the SSO option I imagine they would be turning people away. If things ever got tight, say if the government selected a helicopter that was actually available and could be delivered on schedule they could introduce NCO pilots and also do as the UK does and offer pilot training to serving officers on a short term basis, i.e. spend several years as a captain flying instead of bouncing around staff and training roles before returning to their original Corps as a major.

I imagine there are RAAC Captains who would jump at the chance to avoid shunting between Puka and Kapuka or perhaps the purgatory of being an Adj at an GRES Light CAV Regt / Sqn.

 

[t68]

In regards to the plan Beersheba and the new Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) is there going to be any new equipment incoming to armored component in the way of logistical/combat support and will we reinstate the mothballed Abrams MBT?


I know we have a limited number of tracked armored logistic vehicle in what numbers I don’t know, but is there any plans for this like M1 Assault breacher Vehicle, M104 bridge layer or beach armored recovery vehicle like the UK “hippo” which can assist other vehicles off the beach or push the landing craft off the beach.

We did have one many moons ago using M3A5 grant tank hull, but what I did not know was that using the same hull was our own SPG known as Yeramba using a 25 pounder as the main armament but that’s another story.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In regards to the plan Beersheba and the new Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) is there going to be any new equipment incoming to armored component in the way of logistical/combat support and will we reinstate the mothballed Abrams MBT?

The Abrams were never mothballed beyond the long term reduced manning of 1 Armd Regt. In the end the mothballing program was restructured to take into account Project Beersheba and the transfer of the M113AS4 from the mechanised infantry to the armoured corps. So in place of a squadron of Abrams the rest of the mech inf allotment of M113AS4s were mothballed.

I know we have a limited number of tracked armored logistic vehicle in what numbers I don’t know, but is there any plans for this like M1 Assault breacher Vehicle, M104 bridge layer or beach armored recovery vehicle like the UK “hippo” which can assist other vehicles off the beach or push the landing craft off the beach.

LAND 400 has capacity for new armoured vehicles for the mechanised combat engineer squadron in each “Beersheba” brigade. There is a project in the DCP for new “gap crossing” which could include a AVLB. JP 2048 provides coverage for all of the amphibious vehicles replacement and should include a BARV but AFAIK none have been specified. But if amphibious over the beach training goes out from the ultra-high beach gradient of Cowley Beach safely behind the Great Barrier Reef they will quickly find themselves in the need of a BARV.

 

[the road runner]

Post deleted

 

[Volkodav]

The Abrams were never mothballed beyond the long term reduced manning of 1 Armd Regt. In the end the mothballing program was restructured to take into account Project Beersheba and the transfer of the M113AS4 from the mechanised infantry to the armoured corps. So in place of a squadron of Abrams the rest of the mech inf allotment of M113AS4s were mothballed.



LAND 400 has capacity for new armoured vehicles for the mechanised combat engineer squadron in each “Beersheba” brigade. There is a project in the DCP for new “gap crossing” which could include a AVLB. JP 2048 provides coverage for all of the amphibious vehicles replacement and should include a BARV but AFAIK none have been specified. But if amphibious over the beach training goes out from the ultra-high beach gradient of Cowley Beach safely behind the Great Barrier Reef they will quickly find themselves in the need of a BARV.

Too bad they don't run a reserve Sqn in 1 Armd any more. I suppose the reason is cost but I still think it is a shame. I wonder how much it would actually cost if most of the training was done on simulators with the troops flying in for annual exercises.

 

[gf0012-aust]

newspiece

USARPAC Post Gets Australian General - Business Insider
Why The US Appointing An Aussie General To Command Its Pacific Troops Is a Big Deal

Robert Johnson | Feb. 2, 201

As the Pentagon pours attention and resources into the conflict-ridden Asian-Pacific theater, it's made an unheard of command choice.
The AP reports Australian Maj. General Richard Burr is now Deputy Commanding General for Operations at U.S. Pacific Command (USARPAC) out of Hawaii.

It's the first time a non-American has served in such a high-ranking position at this type of command.

This isn't some out-of-the way little military base — this is the command led by Major General George Moore in the days after World War II. Moore fought at Battan along with enough other dark Pacific campaigns to fill a wall map. This command today will be pivotal in organizing and supplying military operations in the region, and key in building U.S. projection within the Asian theater.

USARPAC is commanded by LTG. "Frank" Wiercinski, who just left the Acting Commander Spot at Ft. Campbell, home to the 101st Airborne Division. That "Air Assault" group called the Screaming Eagles has perhaps been deployed more in the past ten years than any other military division in the U.S.
With nearly non-stop, back-to-back deployments, LTG Wiercinski has a bevy of experience with active troop rotations "down range". That logistical, hands-on experience with forward troops may come in handy if conflicts spring up in the region.

Together the men will package and deliver troops to locations U.S. forces haven't been in decades. It seems like a solid match as the Pacific Command strives to fulfills its mission:

USARPAC postures and prepares the force for unified land operations, responds to threats, sustains and protects the force, and builds military relationships that develop partner defense capacity in order to contribute to a stable and secure USPACOM area of responsibility.

They've got their work cut out for them as the U.S. tries to renew and forge fresh relationships with countries throughout the Pacific Rim.

Along with many medals and USMC training, Maj. Gen. Burr is also holds the honor of the Patron of the Defence Australian Rules Football Association.

 

[King Wally]

In regards to the plan Beersheba and the new Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) ...

Along this line of thought, just how "Amphibious" are the ASLAV's? As a civvy with no experiance with the units I was wondering just how they would be deployed in Beersheba type operations centered around a LHD launching base. I have the impression they would be perfectly suited for these types of missions.

 

[ADMk2]

Along this line of thought, just how "Amphibious" are the ASLAV's? As a civvy with no experiance with the units I was wondering just how they would be deployed in Beersheba type operations centered around a LHD launching base. I have the impression they would be perfectly suited for these types of missions.

Amphibious enough to require an LCM-1E landing craft to get them over the beach...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The ASLAV swim capability is for crossing rivers not beach surf. They would be swamped and sunk if they tried to swim through any kind of surf. Plus the ASLAV is no longer amphibious with the spall liner armour kit fitted not to mention other extra gear. The project to rebuild the ASLAVs with the higher protection level and amphibious capability was cancelled a few years ago.

 

[weegee]

Abrams Tank

Hey guys,

I was just wondering why when compared to other army's around the world do we have so little tank numbers? I know that they cost a crap load of money but is that the reason or is it because of our wonderful island nation and the very remote possibility of a land invasion? If that is the case what is the point of having any at all?

Also what is the point of having them when we don't send them anywhere anyway? were we asked to contribute any to Iraq and Afghanistan? and while I am asking when was the last time one of our tanks shot their guns/cannons in anger? It will be interesting to hear the answers thanks.

 

[Marc 1]

Hey guys,

I was just wondering why when compared to other army's around the world do we have so little tank numbers? I know that they cost a crap load of money but is that the reason or is it because of our wonderful island nation and the very remote possibility of a land invasion? If that is the case what is the point of having any at all?

Also what is the point of having them when we don't send them anywhere anyway? were we asked to contribute any to Iraq and Afghanistan? and while I am asking when was the last time one of our tanks shot their guns/cannons in anger? It will be interesting to hear the answers thanks.

Tanks and heavy armour are expensive, and emphasis in the 80's and 90 was more low intensity stuff.

The point of having any at all is that we retain the skillset to expand our forces in the future. If we get rid of gun tanks, you cannot just buy/inherit some armour and toss some APC drivers in the seats and hope for a decent outcome.

One of the reasons I believe that we selected the Abrams was commonality with the septics. The idea being that in case of a Desert Shield type scenario, our tankies could be flown to pre-positioned US M1's and they could provide experienced crews.

IMO, I would have preferred to see refurbished late model Leo2's replace our L1's from all of the downsized european stocks, but that would have precluded the ability to dovetail with the yanks. FWIW, there is certainly nothing wrong with our selection of the Abrams, I just get a bigger chubby from the L2.

Last time our tanks were used in anger was Vietnam (Centurions), they may have been useful in Afg, (there are some MBT's in theatre and they have proven very useful), but over there there is Arty and air available, and the cost and manpower required to operate and maintain would have meant increasing our numbers out of all proportion to the additional utility they would have provided. Increased numbers and cost = political suicide.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was just wondering why when compared to other army's around the world do we have so little tank numbers?

The primary role of Australian Army tanks is infantry support. The usual force ratio for infantry support is one armoured regiment per infantry division. Since there is one regular infantry division there is one regular armoured regiment. The same applies for the numbers of field artillery and combat engineers but with different ratios. This ratio would be adjusted if we were to raise an armoured formation. That is a formation where the tanks are the primary combat capability and the infantry supports them.

 

[hairyman]

Instead of increasing the numbers of our Abrams tank,which we apparently dont need to do, would it be an idea to acquire a light tank, such as the Swedish CV90, or would such a tank have no position in the Australian Army?

 

[the road runner]

Instead of increasing the numbers of our Abrams tank,which we apparently dont need to do, would it be an idea to acquire a light tank, such as the Swedish CV90, or would such a tank have no position in the Australian Army?

CV90 is more a combat vehicle(CV) than a tank.It carrys a number of infantry in the back that can dis mount and fight.A tracked vehicle like this is lacking in the ADF. Unless you count our upgraded M113 with a 7.62mm gun.