Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Massive]

Eliminate a Battalion within each Brigade but I suggest some growth in other areas.

Option might be to make the 3 brigades:

ACR of 2 Tank & 2 Cav squadrons
One Mech inf of 4 battalions (could be RAAC)

Then have a separate infantry brigade of:

ACR of 3 Cav squadrons
3 infantry battalions

Gives 2 mech battlegroups and an infantry battlegroup available on rotation.

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Regarding the possible reworking of Plan Beersheba Brigades:

The purpose of the 'like' Combat Brigades was to give a range of deployment options for the ready Brigade - we would go in heavy or light depending on circumstances. Each Regular Brigade is now supported by two Reserve Brigades (exception is the Fifth Brigade, but it is more or less two Reserve Brigades in strength) and a persistent Battlegroup. Further, Reserves are now "sorta-kinda" expected to make up 10% of overseas deployments. My questions are:

1. Would we be better having three Regional Divisions - each comprising one regular Brigade and two Reserve Brigades?
This might better incorporate Regular and Reserve formations. Personally, I would keep them separate but that isn't current policy.

2. Should we embed the supporting units, anti-armour, anti-air etc., into the combat brigades and additionally encase them in armour?
OK, current numbers may not be sufficient but ....

3. Should we continue to have an ACR, or split these into their component units - armour and recon?
Our ACR isn't really an ACR - just building blocks for whatever gets deployed.

We could generate the following orbat for a heavy deployment (with the exception of tanks, doable with existing numbers, though I am converting one motorised company to mechanised and assuming we have enough AFVs to do so):

___________________
Regular Combat Brigade (battlegroups built from the following company/squadron building blocks depending upon mission)

2x 12 vehicle Cavalry Squadron
2x Armoured Combat Team - 1x tank squadron (10 - 14 tanks) and 1x mechanized company
2x Mechanised Combat Team - 1x mechanized company and 0-1x troop of tanks
2x Motorised Combat Team - 1x motorised company
Attachments under armour - Anti-armour, Anti-Air, Mortars, Combat Engineers, etc
________________
Reserve Battlegroup

Light Recon squadron
3x Motorised or Light Infantry Combat teams

 

[Volkodav]

2 RARs main role is not recon. They form the core of the ARE/ARG. While they don’t gave a ground combat element permanantly attached, they have the dedicated pre-landing force, command element and logistic element needed for the amphibious force.

108’s role is to provide the JFECC to the amphibious force.

So 2 RAR is basically an enabling capability?
I recall the concept of enabling Battalions or Regiments being discussed in the past and have actually discussed it myself with others, specialist units that can be added to the brigades to enable them to conduct missions outside of their usual scope. Technically other specialities that could be considered could be airmobile and mountain enablers, manpower and funding being the issue of course.

Such units would be the logical home for such things as assault boats, BVS/Bronco type mobility vehicles, even possibly AAVs or AGS. They could even be the custodians of Boxer and Lynx Modules tailored to support their mission sets.

 

[Raven22]

So 2 RAR is basically an enabling capability?
.

Nope, just the opposite - everything else enables 2 RAR. All the dedicated, specialist capabilities will remain resident in 2 RAR, while the generalist capabilities will come from the combat or enabling brigades.

 

[Raven22]

The purpose of the 'like' Combat Brigades was to give a range of deployment options for the ready Brigade - we would go in heavy or light depending on circumstances. Each Regular Brigade is now supported by two Reserve Brigades (exception is the Fifth Brigade, but it is more or less two Reserve Brigades in strength) and a persistent Battlegroup. Further, Reserves are now "sorta-kinda" expected to make up 10% of overseas deployments.

The Beersheeba brigade didn’t come about to give a range of options for deployment for the ready brigade, it come about to give each brigade all the elements of the combined arms team to enable them to raise train and sustain. The fact that each brigade has all the different capabilities is actually a massive negative when it comes to employing the brigade - there are mobility and capability mismatches everywhere, and the logistic burden is massively increased. Dedicated brigades were far, far better when it came to actually employing the brigades.

 

[Raven22]

I think there was a time in the 90's when the Infantry Battalion numbers got down to a total of four............................ A bit scary.
There is merit in doing something well and if the money is not there then yes it makes for hard choices. A single well equipped Mech Infantry Battalion may be doable ( PRE LAND 400 PHASE 2 and 3 ) with an up armoured M113a4 complete with ATGM / AGL and additional armour ( over and above the upgrade- The weight margin ,engine and brakes have some capacity for growth )
Eliminate a Battalion within each Brigade but I suggest some growth in other areas.
Certainly boost M1A1 Tank numbers and personnel.
Do justice to 2 RAR and bring it up to a full sized regular Battalion with each of it's three Maritime infantry company's mirroring the readiness cycle of the Brigades.
Equip this new capability adequately with the water craft it needs for the 21 century. We are not doing WW11 again. ??????
Add to the Commando's another Reg and Res SQN.

The above may prove a correct balance as we transition to Land 400 Vehicles if we lose in the interm three RAR Battalions.
But it is a gamble

Regards S

PS Good thing the RAAF and RAN are in relatively good order.

Deleting a battalion from each brigade would mean the brigade would not be employable. We’re trying to find ways to make each brigade have three full manoeuvre units - going to two would be a huge step back. The US went to two manoeuvre units per brigade, and very quickly went back to three (smaller) manoeuvre units. A one battalion brigade couldn’t even meet current operational and CAPD commitments - that one battalion would become the ready battle group, and there would be nothing left to actually deploy.

If you absolutely had to reduce the size of the infantry, you’d be far better off just reducing the size of existing battalions, even if you were deleting whole rifle companies. It is relatively easy to get rifle plaroons and maybe even rifle companies out of the Reserve to backfill - you can’t get whole battalions. There is nothing compelling that sort of radical change, however.

I’d strongly argue that the manoeuvre force is about as small as you can make it. Reducing it more to fund enabling capabilities would be counter-productive, as there’s would be nothing left to enable.

 

[Volkodav]

B

Nope, just the opposite - everything else enables 2 RAR. All the dedicated, specialist capabilities will remain resident in 2 RAR, while the generalist capabilities will come from the combat or enabling brigades.

But isn't 2 RAR the amphibious operations enabler to the brigades?

 

[Raven22]

B

But isn't 2 RAR the amphibious operations enabler to the brigades?

No, as the amphibious capability is owned by 1 Div and not the brigades. When needed, the combat brigades will generate the ground combat element and then force assign them to 1 Div. The rotary wing element will come from 16 Bde, and the logistic element will be a mixture of the combat brigade and 17 Bde. The pre-landing force of course will come from 2 RAR, which permanently belongs to 1 Div anyway.

1 Div is the centre of the amphibious capability, and everyone is an enabler to them.

 

[Volkodav]

No, as the amphibious capability is owned by 1 Div and not the brigades. When needed, the combat brigades will generate the ground combat element and then force assign them to 1 Div. The rotary wing element will come from 16 Bde, and the logistic element will be a mixture of the combat brigade and 17 Bde. The pre-landing force of course will come from 2 RAR, which permanently belongs to 1 Div anyway.

1 Div is the centre of the amphibious capability, and everyone is an enabler to them.

I think I must be misunderstanding the use of terminology here.

My understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be) is that the brigades provide the combat capability while other specialist units provide elements that enable them to operate and achieve the desired mission outcomes in diverse environments?

 

[Takao]

Deleting a battalion from each brigade would mean the brigade would not be employable. We’re trying to find ways to make each brigade have three full manoeuvre units - going to two would be a huge step back. The US went to two manoeuvre units per brigade, and very quickly went back to three (smaller) manoeuvre units. A one battalion brigade couldn’t even meet current operational and CAPD commitments - that one battalion would become the ready battle group, and there would be nothing left to actually deploy.

If you absolutely had to reduce the size of the infantry, you’d be far better off just reducing the size of existing battalions, even if you were deleting whole rifle companies. It is relatively easy to get rifle plaroons and maybe even rifle companies out of the Reserve to backfill - you can’t get whole battalions. There is nothing compelling that sort of radical change, however.

I’d strongly argue that the manoeuvre force is about as small as you can make it. Reducing it more to fund enabling capabilities would be counter-productive, as there’s would be nothing left to enable.

I disagree.

1, 3 and 7 Bde contribute to Army's mission which is to prepare land forces to fight. Having one Bn per Bde or five per Bde does not add or take away from their ability to conduct raise-train-sustain. The reality is if we need to raise a Bde sized force to deploy we will grab units from across Army, no matter where and what they are. That includes the reset Bde if needed. So if the deployable Bde needs four manoeuvre units - then it grabs a Bn from each of the other two and adds them to its ACR and own Bn. Note that Army has already assumed there will not be a complete second rotation because of enablers and an infantry Bn is the easiest of all the units to raise quickly.

The RBG / CAPD is an interesting argument, but I think that reality has overtaken the on paper argument. By this I mean that we have already accepted Ready Bde's as having one Inf Bn - and that Bn is the RBG. Additional deployments came from outside that Bde. Plus, again, Beersheba is a RTS construct - my CAPD requirements will be met from across Army.

I don't disagree that it is easier to kill Coy and Pl than a Bn, and that it is hard to kill an Bn. But if I am faced with having to afford a whole bunch of 'stuff' that we have deemed the Army needs (IFV, CRV, tanks, rocket arty, digital radios, etc) then where am I getting the money from? The answer is to cut stuff we don't need, so what will that be? And what, of sufficient scale, can I cut to afford all of these? There are two units that, generally speaking, do not require huge amounts of training and time to stand up - a CSSB or an Inf Bn. Beersheba gives me the RTS element (meaning they don't need to be deployable, but they need to train) and I have 1 of the former and 2 of the latter. So why not cut it and role those positions and $ over?

I agree that the manoeuvre force is small, but I can still constitute a deployed Bde of 4x manoeuvre elements. So Army can still do its job. But until it gets a lot more money (unlikely), then it may have to learn to live within its means.

 

[Raven22]

I think I must be misunderstanding the use of terminology here.

My understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be) is that the brigades provide the combat capability while other specialist units provide elements that enable them to operate and achieve the desired mission outcomes in diverse environments?

In normal force generation, you are more or less correct. However, the amphibious capability is different, and due to its nature is raised the same way as an operational deployment. The different services provide their respected force elements to 1 Div, who then conduct all the training necessary to get them to the deployable standard. It is basically an OPGEN process instead of a FORGEN process. In this instance, the combat brigade acts the same way as the enabling brigades - as the supporting rather than the supported formation.

Command relationships can be complicated.

 

[Takao]

Nope, just the opposite - everything else enables 2 RAR. All the dedicated, specialist capabilities will remain resident in 2 RAR, while the generalist capabilities will come from the combat or enabling brigades.

Which, as reinforced by FORCOMD on Twitter recently, puts us in the odd position of 2 RAR concentrating on infantry 'stuff' only while the Bde provides the combined arms effect.

Meaning we now have a unit in the Army that, despite combined arms being a building block of our entire ethos, does not do combined arms.....

 

[Volkodav]

In normal force generation, you are more or less correct. However, the amphibious capability is different, and due to its nature is raised the same way as an operational deployment. The different services provide their respected force elements to 1 Div, who then conduct all the training necessary to get them to the deployable standard. It is basically an OPGEN process instead of a FORGEN process. In this instance, the combat brigade acts the same way as the enabling brigades - as the supporting rather than the supported formation.

Command relationships can be complicated.

Thanks, I think I get it now. Where amphib is concerned 2 RAR are the main force element and the brigades provide the capability enabling it to do its job.

Would have thought you'd be busy at Hamel now?

 

[pgclift]

Announced yesterday was the forthcoming transfer of 2 Army Black Hawk helicopters to the NSW RFS from 2019. A link to the RFS media release is here.
https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/news-and-media/ministerial-media-releases/black-hawks-to-support-nsw-rfs

NSW Budget Papers say the helicopters were gifted from the ADF and the state has set aside $6.5m to repurpose and refurb them.
https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/budget-overview/protecting-our-communities

This will give the RFS a new organic capability that will enable them to uplift firefighters and deploy them to remote or inaccessible firegrounds whereas current aerial assets are mainly involved in waterbombing and (presumably) eyes in the sky firefront reconnaissance.

This announcement comes on top of last year’s reports that that Sikorsky Helitech, Kaan Air Australia and StarFlight Australia have signed an agreement to bring an initial 10 ex-US Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters into Australia to be refurbished for use locally in aerial firefighting, emergency services and disaster relief operations with an option for 10 more.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/07/ex-us-army-black-hawks-headed-down-under-for-fire-fighting-operations/

We have certainly come a long way since the days I would watch grainy black and white images of volunteers trying to beat out fires with hessian attached to poles and hand operated metal knapsacks full of water.

The RFS media release also includes the comment that the 39 Army Blackhawks are expected to be gradually withdrawn from service from 2019. I have read in these posts that the MRH 90 is not ideal for special operations use so does that suggest a new helicopter type or just keeping a residual fleet of Blackhawks until the kinks are worked out.

 

[aussienscale]

Rheinmetall have launched the Lynx KF41 Command Variant, same base vehicle, but re-configured with the command module, approx 3.5 Hrs to make the conversion between the IFV and Command modules. Guessing this is then the same process for the Ambulance, Recovery etc.

Interesting on the Command variant is the new Fieldranger RCWS system, is this a potential play for and RCWS system across the Army ? several variants available, a potential for Hawkei ?

Eurosatory 2018: Rheinmetall Unveils FIELDRANGER Family

 

[Joe Black]

Interesting on the Command variant is the new Fieldranger RCWS system, is this a potential play for and RCWS system across the Army ? several variants available, a potential for Hawkei ?

Eurosatory 2018: Rheinmetall Unveils FIELDRANGER Family

I think given that ADF has already been using EOS RWS, I think it is probably better for us to stick with the incumbent and also something we produce locally. I think the EOS R-400 and EOS R-600 should probably be good enough for the ADF. I am hoping that EOS would produce naval version of their RWS, somewhat like the Leonardo HitRole range.

 

[PeterM]

Just a curious passing thought...

If the US does go ahead with BAE producing 473 new build Bradleys, could the M2A4 Bradley's be a wildcard option for Land 400 Phase 3 considering we are no longer wedded to 8 dismounts?

There are certainly potential benefits tapping into the US supply train, training etc. Potentially we could use BAE for local builds or consider the FMS option.

I am certainly not advocating this option, just more curious whether it could be on the table.

 

[Joe Black]

Just a curious passing thought...

If the US does go ahead with BAE producing 473 new build Bradleys, could the M2A4 Bradley's be a wildcard option for Land 400 Phase 3 considering we are no longer wedded to 8 dismounts?

There are certainly potential benefits tapping into the US supply train, training etc. Potentially we could use BAE for local builds or consider the FMS option.

I am certainly not advocating this option, just more curious whether it could be on the table.

Maybe, if only BAE pitches this as a candidate. I think they are presenting the CV90 Mk IV as the Land 400 Phase 3 candidate. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they also throw in the Bradleys. To be honest, I think Rheinmetall is n the box seat right with with both the Puma and the Lynx KF41 offerings.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Just a curious passing thought...

If the US does go ahead with BAE producing 473 new build Bradleys, could the M2A4 Bradley's be a wildcard option for Land 400 Phase 3 considering we are no longer wedded to 8 dismounts?

There are certainly potential benefits tapping into the US supply train, training etc. Potentially we could use BAE for local builds or consider the FMS option.

I am certainly not advocating this option, just more curious whether it could be on the table.

It's only 164 M2A4 and M7A4 Bradleys. And, based on the language in the DoD release, it does not appear they are new builds
BAE lands $347 million US Army contract to produce upgraded Bradley Fighting Vehicles

"... “BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., York, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $347,999,966 fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for production of up to 164 Bradley M2A4 and M7A4 vehicles, and procurement of authorized stockage list spares, and additional packages for legacy component repair using M2A3, M7A3 and Operation Desert Storm-Situational Awareness vehicles as a baseline,” the Thursday, June 15 release said. ..."

"... Note: The original release said 473 Bradley M2A4 and M7A4 vehicles. The Department of Defense corrected the quantity to 164 on June 15, 2018. ..."

 

[Stampede]

Something I found of interest in the Navy Newspaper


Tank cut down to size. Cross section of an ex Army Leopard MBT
Current Edition : Navy News Paper : Department of Defence

Regards S