AFP regularly second Police officers from other states and territories, so will have plenty of experience and expertise to call upon to assist with their own investigators if needed.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It’s also not uncommon for Australian Police both State and Federal to call on the FBI for expertise.
Would appear to be, if proven, the same things that Breaker Morant and his colleagues were convicted of.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Sorry - was travelling.
At the moment most of our ideas about F-35 are theoretical - especially when we talk about combining them with UAVs. As we fly them more (and get the hours up), the pilots will become more familiar with what the system can and cannot do, expanding to the enablers like E-7A and EF-18G and then combining UAVs when the RAAF get some.
Until you play with a system, you don't really know it's capabilities. This is particularly important in a combined arms force.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
From the above is this correct?
Army will retain three Multi role Combat Brigades:
3 and 7 Brigades will remain as is. All Regular Army.
9 Brigade will become a new Multirole Combat Brigade with 1 AR and 7RAR as regular army units and 10/27th Battalion(reserve) will be the second infantry battalion (presumably in Bushmasters) with 9 Regt as the artillery unit. What happens to A Squadron 3/9th Light Horse?
1 Brigade will be a new type of Brigade for Army, light amphibious with 3 infantry battalions, all of them Regular Army:
2RAR
4RAR (new unit)
5RAR (still in Bushmasters?)
8/12 Regt remains as the artillery unit for 1 Brigade.
13 Brigade will add capability like Artillery/Cavalry but will it be a mixed Regular/Reserve unit?
OldTex
Well-Known Member
If 1 Bde was to be re-roled as a light brigade optimised for littoral manoeuvre, independent of the RAN amphibious platforms, would suggest a couple of significant changes. Firstly it suggests that the manoeuvre elements would likely be combat team (CT) sized in the main, rather than the battle group (BG) currently in the multirole combat brigades. Secondly, and following on from the former, as a light brigade there would be no requirement for 60+ tonne battle tanks, 30+ tonne CRVs, 40+ tonne IFVs or SPHs. It then raises the questions of how the reconnaissance role would be enabled, how land based manoeuvre would be undertaken and fire support would be effected? It may mean that vehicles like the supacats are used for recce and troop lift and that 120mm mortars become the fire support weapon system.
9 Bde with a single ARA battalion and an ARES battalion would not be a like replacement for 1 Bde as a multirole combat brigade. It may perhaps require the relocation of 5RAR down to Adelaide, rather than being geographically separated (although that is the current situation for 1 Bde anyway). This would leave the light amphibious 1 Bde with 2 ARA battalions on light scales.
All of this is moot anyway as both the Force Structure Plan and the Defence Strategic Update, both released 4-5 years later than the presentation, have given no indication that the proposals in the presentation have been accepted or being implemented.
As I said, there is only so much you can learn from a single slide in an unclassified presentation.
One thing though, the presentation shows 2 RAR remaining in Townsville, not becoming part of 1 Bde in Darwin
I think you’ll find the presentation is from August this year, after the release of the Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan. It is, if you like, the Army planning to implement the changes from the FSP (the hint is in the name of the presentation - ‘Army Force Structure Implementation Plan’)
Sorry for the late reply.
I was involved in a number of homicide investigation in my 30 years in the Vic. Police. I can remember prior to the Federal Police being formed, when it was the Commonwealth Police. Their main duty was the protection of Commonwealth property. When the Federal Police Force was formed, several highly thought of Victorian policemen were poached, and I daresay from the other states as well. They were used to set up the drug portion of the Feds, which as we have seen over the years has done a very good job. However offences of a serious and violent nature, such as homicide and armed robbery etc, were only their responsibility when they occurred in Canberra or on Federal territory, so they had little opportunity to gain experience.
I would not have their job for quids. Can you imagine the amount of political interference they woud get?
I was involved in a number of homicide investigation in my 30 years in the Vic. Police. I can remember prior to the Federal Police being formed, when it was the Commonwealth Police. Their main duty was the protection of Commonwealth property. When the Federal Police Force was formed, several highly thought of Victorian policemen were poached, and I daresay from the other states as well. They were used to set up the drug portion of the Feds, which as we have seen over the years has done a very good job. However offences of a serious and violent nature, such as homicide and armed robbery etc, were only their responsibility when they occurred in Canberra or on Federal territory, so they had little opportunity to gain experience.
I would not have their job for quids. Can you imagine the amount of political interference they woud get?
Will be interesting to see what actually eventuates in this revamp of force structure.
I do confess to a preference of common like brigades in structure.
If new capability's and their associated equipment are to be purchased then accommodating them within the existing brigade structure would seem to make sense.
Long term sustainment of operations should still be the priority, with the ability to ramp up or down from this structure depending upon the timing and size of contingency.
Are we going back to the 1980's?
Regards S
Thank you for your reply and stating your qualifications for the context of your original reply. You will be aware that the AFP were involved in the MH17 shoot down investigation so as other posters have noted do have the capability and if don't will call on expertise from State police forces. So it's not like they are going to be like a bull in a china shop.
Imagine trying to cross examine an SAS soldier who has been trained in resistance to interrogation
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Don’t know if the old Name,Rank and Serial number will work in a Civilian Court though
If an SAS soldier is being cross-examined, he will have got into the box to give evidence in his own defence, voluntarily... I suspect the closed-lip routine, wouldn’t serve particularly well at that point...
Tried that when got pulled over by a traffic cop for speeding once. He didn't have a sense of humour about it. Can't understand why myself.
Read the report, it's specifically mentioned being encountered by the investigators.
I suppose the point I was initially trying to make is that Federal police normally dont have violent crimes or criminals to worry about. maybe that has changed somewhat over the years, but I dont see how it could change too much. Anyway I hope whoever does the investigations remember that these young men were sent over to do a job, and whatever happened was in consequence of that. I am sure that in previous wars there were similar events. Lt Calley anyone.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Yeah... no.
There is no mandatory conscription in Australia to the best of my knowledge, so their service was voluntary, and therefore their actions were also voluntary.
I admit I didn't read too much past the headline, but from what I have read it doesn't sound at all like some "I was only following orders" BS which is a completely illegitimate argument in court, by the way.
In Israel we have multiple ongoing conflicts in multiple borders, so obviously the chances and actual rates of crimes and atrocities against innocent civilians is higher than the ADF's.
They only get 1 mitigating factor if someone is found guilty, and that is mandatory service.
You can try a soldier in court for breaking the law like any other citizen. But some of the blame is on the army for putting 18 year old kids in an extremely stressful situation, with a gun, on a daily basis for almost 3 years.
But you don't have that in Australia. Can't possibly make that argument in court.
If a policeman knowingly and intentionally kills a civilian without any reasonable justification, his service as a policeman does not mitigate his sentence.
I believe that the prosecution is one David Mclure. He good, very good. I have first hand experience with this bloke, he is Lt Col in ARes legal. Among other things. He defended the NT govt in a surpreme court case I was a witness in. And won. He was Arty originally but crossed over to SF himself I believe. He is very good and a total professional.
There are still a lot of what if’s, and I know that they don’t excuse murder, but put yourself in their shoes.
I can think of quite a few reasons that SAS might kill an “innocent “ civilian, one being they are not innocent but keep getting away with it through being clever and useing the ROE in a clever way. Others being time restraints, like you have too many prisoners to transport, you either stay until more transport arrives, putting your entire patrol in danger for who knows how long, knowing that you are completely compromised at that point, let the extras go to fight them again another day, or murder them. What would you do? You have seconds to make the call with adrenaline still pumping, you are trained to make a decision, it’s not always the right one, but better than being indecisive.
The link below is the clarification to this post that old faithful has made because someone has complained about this post. At no stage has old faithful condoned extra judicial killings.
Ngatimozart
I can think of quite a few reasons that SAS might kill an “innocent “ civilian, one being they are not innocent but keep getting away with it through being clever and useing the ROE in a clever way. Others being time restraints, like you have too many prisoners to transport, you either stay until more transport arrives, putting your entire patrol in danger for who knows how long, knowing that you are completely compromised at that point, let the extras go to fight them again another day, or murder them. What would you do? You have seconds to make the call with adrenaline still pumping, you are trained to make a decision, it’s not always the right one, but better than being indecisive.
The link below is the clarification to this post that old faithful has made because someone has complained about this post. At no stage has old faithful condoned extra judicial killings.
Ngatimozart
Australian Army Discussions and Updates
I think you’ll find the presentation is from August this year, after the release of the Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan. It is, if you like, the Army planning to implement the changes from the FSP (the hint is in the name of the presentation - ‘Army Force Structure...
www.defencetalk.com
Last edited by a moderator: