Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Anthony_B_78]

All this chat about re raising 4 RAR, why not do as suggested, re role 5 RAR, and de link 8 and 9 RAR, with A and B coy reforming 8 RAR and C and Support Coy raising 9 RAR, that way you could recruit and build both Battalions simultaneously over a 12 - 18 month period.

I don't think 2 specialised, partial Battalions in 2 different locations really helps much. Adding to 2 RAR does and de-linking 8/9 does.

One question that may or may not have been asked before is why isn't 2 RAR in Sydney closer to our LHD's? Makes sense to me...

From what Raven cited previously, and what I've seen elsewhere, it seems that while the plan is to grow the army (IIRC, an increase of 5000 was stated), the emphasis is on combat support and service support capabilities, with the exception perhaps of re-raising 4RAR along the same lines as 2RAR.

So, you know, I'm not sure if advocating for more RAR battalions would count as being realistic. That's for others to judge, I guess. That said, given the discussion here, what was said previously and the demand to strengthen the ADF, I could see arguments for more battalions. I guess the questions are where you put them, their role and their structure.

If you split 8/9RAR to form two battalions, do you leave both in Brisbane under 7 Brigade, or move one to Darwin to bring 1 Brigade up to two battalions?

If 2RAR is brought to full strength, does it remain in Townsville or should it be moved to Sydney or Brisbane?

Does 3 Brigade remain with the Beersheba structure, or should 1 and 3 brigades adopt a two-battalion "light" model, while 7 and 9 brigades become mechanised?

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed, and the same can be said of basically every capability. The question comes back to what is the right balance of forces. I wouldn't want to see fewer armoured or cavalry squadrons, though one fewer regular mechanised infantry? That I think could be argued. What we've really missed is having the full range of capabilities that allows you to commit forces to a wider range of contingencies, including higher intensity warfare. With SP artillery and armoured engineers, and more (upgraded) Abrams, you can potentially deploy an armoured / mechanised / "heavy" brigade in an invasion of Iraq scenario. (Whether you'd want to is another question.)

Well apparently a former PM did offer to send and Australian armoured brigade to Iraq before he was quietly informed we didn't have one. This was suprisingly after Timor of course, which was meant to have been the wake up call on how hollow the ADF had been left by basically twenty years of cuts, restructures, economy drives and efficiencies.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Well apparently a former PM did offer to send and Australian armoured brigade to Iraq before he was quietly informed we didn't have one. This was suprisingly after Timor of course, which was meant to have been the wake up call on how hollow the ADF had been left by basically twenty years of cuts, restructures, economy drives and efficiencies.

I recall the interview and the fuss. I think he was badly briefed / informed, but not sure who got it in their head we even had one. Nor have we arguably gained that capability even now. We're closer though than we've been since World War 2. If, back when he said it, we actually had a brigade with an armoured cavalry regiment (with two squadrons of cavalry, one of tanks), a mechanised infantry battalion, a SP artillery regiment, an armoured engineering squadron, and other combat support and combat service support units and sub-units - all with modern equipment - it might well have been deployed, and made a useful contribution. (A third manoeuvre unit would be better, but you can't have everything.) We will have that in the near future. I think that could be said to be a lesson learned.

 

[Redlands18]

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-ah-64e-apache-helicopters

DSCA has rubber stamped Australia’s AH-64E purchase including 16 AN/APG-78 Longbow Radars, 85 AGM-114R Hellfire Missiles, 2000 APKWS-GS guidance systems for 2.75in Rockets and a unspecified number of 30mm rounds.
Total value of the package is US$3.5B.
*link now working

 

[Bob53]

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-ah-64e-apache-helicopters

DSCA has rubber stamped Australia’s AH-64E purchase including 16 AN/APG-78 Longbow Radars, 85 AGM-114R Hellfire Missiles, 2000 APKWS-GS guidance systems for 2.75in Rockets and a unspecified number of 30mm rounds.
Total value of the package is US$3.5B.
*link now working

Notwithstanding earlier chats about fantasy fleets but taking into account there is some form on concensus that more cabilities are required quickly.

Would keeping the Tigers in another role add any value... we already have them, Cost is sunk, all training done. So yes the bodies and facilities have to come from some where but would the added capability be worth it given its here and now at a time when additional capabilities are being sought?

 

[Milne Bay]

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-ah-64e-apache-helicopters

DSCA has rubber stamped Australia’s AH-64E purchase including 16 AN/APG-78 Longbow Radars, 85 AGM-114R Hellfire Missiles, 2000 APKWS-GS guidance systems for 2.75in Rockets and a unspecified number of 30mm rounds.
Total value of the package is US$3.5B.
*link now working

A quick question for those that might know:
Why a difference between the number of airframes and the number of longbow radars?
Are the heicopters networked, to share data and Radar - or is there another reason?
MB

 

[Big_Zucchini]

A quick question for those that might know:
Why a difference between the number of airframes and the number of longbow radars?
Are the heicopters networked, to share data and Radar - or is there another reason?
MB

Too many possibilities to make an accurate guess.

 

[Redlands18]

How do we pay for one of those fleets?

At the moment, all of the funding line for Tiger will transition to Apache. Just like Kiowa's did to Tiger. So one of the fleets miss out.

How will we pay for the maintainers? Even if they aren't flying, they still have calendar servicing's. Someone will have to do that, and we are normally stretched for RAEME as is. Plus the training school will have to keep the Tiger modules open.

Just like Marcus Hellyer B-21 bullshit in the other post, this falls down when you ask simple finance questions. If we had the cash to keep two ARH fleets flying, why not buy extra AH-64 and consolidate? It's dumb, and the fact that Hellyer and co can get worked up over $50b v $80b (when it's the same number) for sub's but not do simple USD-AUD conversions or fleet logistics is......irritating.

Two additional, minor though, quibbles. One, yes, most of the kit is maintained here. But the spares come from France. and two, yes AH-64 is a little wider, but all bar six hangers in Robertson Barracks are designed for MRH and hence can fit an Apache.

@Bob53
@Takao answered this question a couple of pages back as he says you end up having to pay for 2 relatively small Fleets of Aircraft that have no value other then being Attack/ARH Helicopters. They are useless as anything else other then maybe personal Tpt for a General.

 

[spoz]

Too many possibilities to make an accurate guess.

Indeed; but the vagaries of the FMS process may mean that this is not the complete order.

 

[Raven22]

A quick question for those that might know:
Why a difference between the number of airframes and the number of longbow radars?
Are the heicopters networked, to share data and Radar - or is there another reason?
MB

While they are networked and can share information, the main reason is simply that the Longbow radar isn’t very useful a lot of the time, and adds weight that can be used for fuel/weapons instead. A US Army company of eight Apaches will normally have only three Longbow radars. The buy of 16 Longbows would allow Australia to maintain a similar allocation.

 

[Volkodav]

A thought crosses my mind and I apologise as it is fantasy fleet.

Perhaps the structure of the brigades could be changed while maintaining roughly the same personnel numbers by expanding the single squadron of tanks into a full regiment with three or four sabre squadrons and merging the armoured cavalry regiment and the motor/mech (wheeled) battalion into a mounted infantry / rifle cavalry regiment.

More tanks in a full regiment, the armoured infantry Regiment remains unchanged, while the Cavalry regains assault troops in each sabre squadron but also gains a fully integrated mounted security force.

Any left over infantry from the disbanded battalion could be re-roled as a Pioneer force in the combat engineer regiment, or those from each brigade could be amalgamated into a light infantry force and brigaded with 2 RAR as marines and or air mobile infantry.

 

[Stampede]

A thought crosses my mind and I apologise as it is fantasy fleet.

Perhaps the structure of the brigades could be changed while maintaining roughly the same personnel numbers by expanding the single squadron of tanks into a full regiment with three or four sabre squadrons and merging the armoured cavalry regiment and the motor/mech (wheeled) battalion into a mounted infantry / rifle cavalry regiment.

More tanks in a full regiment, the armoured infantry Regiment remains unchanged, while the Cavalry regains assault troops in each sabre squadron but also gains a fully integrated mounted security force.

Any left over infantry from the disbanded battalion could be re-roled as a Pioneer force in the combat engineer regiment, or those from each brigade could be amalgamated into a light infantry force and brigaded with 2 RAR as marines and or air mobile infantry.

Hi Volk

Some clarity
Are you suggesting 3 x Tanks Sqns per Brigade.
Three Brigades for a total of 9 x Tank Sqn's all up?


Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

Hi Volk

Some clarity
Are you suggesting 3 x Tanks Sqns per Brigade.
Three Brigades for a total of 9 x Tank Sqn's all up?


Regards S

Yes.

Switch from infantry heavy to tank heavy. More tanks less infantry platoons.

In fact, take it a step further an infantry platoon has thirty soldiers, I know there are variations and work still ongoing on the final structures for armoured and motor infantry, but say thirty. A tank troop has twelve for three tanks and sixteen for four tanks so roughly personnel wise you can man two tank troops for each platoon. This assumes the support overheads of each have similar personnel allocations. Technically then, disbanding one infantry company could provide personnel for two additional squadrons of tanks.

This leaves three companies of infantry in the battalion. So leave this as it is, or maybe provide one section to each of the six Boxer cav troops to serve as assault troops, this leaves one company that can be assigned to the ACR as a mounted infantry security force.

Brigade structure goes from one combined tank / cav ACR, one armoured inf btn and one motor inf btn to one tank regt, one ACR and one armoured inf btn.

Any remaining personnel (if any) could be assigned as pioneers within the brigade or perhaps bolster 2 RAR or the proposed reformed 4 RAR.

For anyone concerned about laying up colours etc. the tank regiments can take the Cav / armoured guidons, while the ACR could take the btn colours, i.e. 7 RAR (CAV). Even switch it around and the ACR can stay cav with the guidons and the tank regiments could become tank battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment.

....awaiting the inevitable pitch forks and flaming torches......

 

[Massive]

Brigade structure goes from one combined tank / cav ACR, one armoured inf btn and one motor inf btn to one tank regt, one ACR and one armoured inf btn.

My preference would be for 3 common brigades of Tank Regiment (3 squadrons), Cav Regiment (3 squadrons), IFV Battalion (Lynx - 3 companies), APC Battalion (Boxer - 3 companies), SPG Regiment (3 batteries of 6 guns)

All properly formed (ie. Cav scouts etc)

30% increase in maneuver units so definitely veering into fantasy fleet but if serious about survivable effective land-power on a modern battlefield then that is what I feel is required.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

My preference would be for 3 common brigades of Tank Regiment (3 squadrons), Cav Regiment (3 squadrons), IFV Battalion (Lynx - 3 companies), APC Battalion (Boxer - 3 companies), SPG Regiment (3 batteries of 6 guns)

All properly formed (ie. Cav scouts etc)

30% increase in maneuver units so definitely veering into fantasy fleet but if serious about survivable effective land-power on a modern battlefield then that is what I feel is required.

Regards,

Massive

For the US it used to be a mech BDE was one tank and two inf btns while and arms BDE was two tank and one inf btn. I believe their current structure is square, i.e. two tank plus two inf btn per heavy BDE. Cav used to be an ACR at Corps level and a Sqn at division. We are actually quite Cav heavy, or perhaps more accurately, tank and infantry light.

I would hazard that it would take less time and effort to get a reserve infantry btn and supporting IMV sqn up to speed than it would pretty much any other capability. Theoretically then, if any capability was to be dropped from the full time establishment, that would be the one. The ARA retains the capabilities that are the most difficult and time consuming to raise and train, while the reserves support them where they can best play to their strengths.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

....awaiting the inevitable pitch forks and flaming torches......

Not sure if you'll get those more for the somewhat - no offence - "fantasy" idea of basically tripling our frontline tank strength or the tinkering with the identity of units, with all the love for tradition and so forth. I do like some of your ideas though.

If we tried to keep the growth - and, therefore, increased spending - to a minimum I think we could still see reform that would improve capability and generally make sense. Since we're moving to four combat brigades, what if two were structured more as "light" formations and two as "heavy"?

That would mean concentrating all the tanks, IFVs, SP artillery and armoured engineering in two brigades. Let's say 7 and 9 brigades in Brisbane and Adelaide respectively.

You could take your idea and basically strip the tanks from the armoured cavalry regiments while giving them half or so of a motorised infantry battalion, making them more cavalry. And you'd do that in 3 Brigade with 2nd Cavalry Regiment too, since the Boxers would be useful to a "light" brigade.

Rather than more tanks, or more than we're supposedly going to get, you could field them in two small armoured regiment, which might each include a field squadron with their new armoured engineering vehicles. The tank squadrons might have 10-11 Abrams each - or 22-24 for the regiment - through fielding three troops of three tanks each. Then each of 7 and 9 brigades also have a single armoured infantry battalion with the new IFV, a SP artillery regiment, and service support units.

As for the "light" brigades, 1 in Darwin and 3 in Townsville, two infantry battalions, a field artillery regiment, and so forth, with 3 Brigade also having 2nd Cavalry, as mentioned. Maybe 2RAR (moving south or not) retains the amphibious pre landing force role and is expanded, or maybe you have one battalion in each brigade designated in the amphibious role.

In total, you'd have two small armoured regiments, three cavalry regiments (with the equivalent of about two rifle companies each), and six to seven infantry battalions (two armoured, and either two light/motorised and two amphibious, or four light/motorised and one amphibious).

 

[Stampede]

Not sure if you'll get those more for the somewhat - no offence - "fantasy" idea of basically tripling our frontline tank strength or the tinkering with the identity of units, with all the love for tradition and so forth. I do like some of your ideas though.

If we tried to keep the growth - and, therefore, increased spending - to a minimum I think we could still see reform that would improve capability and generally make sense. Since we're moving to four combat brigades, what if two were structured more as "light" formations and two as "heavy"?

That would mean concentrating all the tanks, IFVs, SP artillery and armoured engineering in two brigades. Let's say 7 and 9 brigades in Brisbane and Adelaide respectively.

You could take your idea and basically strip the tanks from the armoured cavalry regiments while giving them half or so of a motorised infantry battalion, making them more cavalry. And you'd do that in 3 Brigade with 2nd Cavalry Regiment too, since the Boxers would be useful to a "light" brigade.

Rather than more tanks, or more than we're supposedly going to get, you could field them in two small armoured regiment, which might each include a field squadron with their new armoured engineering vehicles. The tank squadrons might have 10-11 Abrams each - or 22-24 for the regiment - through fielding three troops of three tanks each. Then each of 7 and 9 brigades also have a single armoured infantry battalion with the new IFV, a SP artillery regiment, and service support units.

As for the "light" brigades, 1 in Darwin and 3 in Townsville, two infantry battalions, a field artillery regiment, and so forth, with 3 Brigade also having 2nd Cavalry, as mentioned. Maybe 2RAR (moving south or not) retains the amphibious pre landing force role and is expanded, or maybe you have one battalion in each brigade designated in the amphibious role.

In total, you'd have two small armoured regiments, three cavalry regiments (with the equivalent of about two rifle companies each), and six to seven infantry battalions (two armoured, and either two light/motorised and two amphibious, or four light/motorised and one amphibious).

Interesting concepts all round.
I like sustainability so is it the rule of three or four?
Depends on how big the Army will grow.
I have often wondered of the merit of a small Brigade concept times four.

Looking at Tank Inf and Cav numbers only

Currently
9 x Mech Inf Sqns /Coy
9 x Motor Inf Sqns / Coy
3 x Tank Sqn
6 x Cav Sqns ( Or is it back to 3? )
Total 27 Sqn / Coys

How about one extra for a total of 28

Each Brigade to have seven Sqn / Coys

One heavy battalion like the US Mech Inf Batt of 1 x Tank and 2 x Mech Inf Sqn / Coy.
One Motorized Inf Battalion 3 x Sqn ( Bushmaster/Hawkei ) plus add a troop of Gun Boxers to each Battalion
One large Cav Sqn ( Boxer ) Fully crewed to be either rolled as Cav or swing to supportive APC.

Four Brigades in total

Buy more tanks and fewer IFV.

Either four common Brigades or as suggested Two Light and two Heavy.

The upshot is still a cycle of four.

Sustaining one Brigade long term should be easier than with a cycle of three.
Should we see trouble on the horizon then getting the "readying" Brigade up to speed to compliment the Ready Brigade should be doable with a reserve in the training cycle of still another two Brigades.
I doubt we would have much success in bringing up to speed Two Brigades at one time in a cycle of three

Two Brigades of 14 Sqns/ Coys versus our current solo Brigade of 9 Sqns/ Coys.

Again its dollars and commitment and this is without dealing with the number requirements for Engineers/Sigs/Artillery Etc.

I'm sure Army play with many concepts looking forward.

Any way just my fantasy fleet before heading back to reality


Regards S

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Interesting concepts all round.
I like sustainability so is it the rule of three or four?
Depends on how big the Army will grow.

I think the idea of sustainability through identical brigades is out the window as we've discussed, and I would say too that it was and is much more likely that a sustained deployment of a task force of brigade-size would have units drawn from across the board.

So, looking for example at my thoughts above, it may be that you want to deploy - on its own or as part of a task force - a battlegroup drawn from the "heavy brigades" of a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron, two mechanised infantry companies, a SP artillery battery, and engineering and other detachments. You could sustain that with the structure I put forward for three rotations, and still have elements that weren't required to deploy over that time - making them available for other contingencies.

The other side is if you did want to deploy a brigade for a single rotation then a "heavy" brigade would be suitable for an invasion of Iraq scenario.

There would be advantages, efficiencies, cost-savings of grouping like forces in more limited locations.

 

[Stampede]

This ASPI piece in the Strategist may have some interest and relevance

Are Australia’s new armoured vehicles too heavy? | The Strategist

The Defence Department’s decisions on acquiring tanks and the next generation of armoured vehicles are contentious and seem to always generate passionate responses. In 2018, former major general and now senator Jim Molan duked it ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I believe in the need for both heavy and Light.

Regards S

 

[Anthony_B_78]

This ASPI piece in the Strategist may have some interest and relevance

Are Australia’s new armoured vehicles too heavy? | The Strategist

The Defence Department’s decisions on acquiring tanks and the next generation of armoured vehicles are contentious and seem to always generate passionate responses. In 2018, former major general and now senator Jim Molan duked it ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I believe in the need for both heavy and Light.

Regards S

They have a point in that a lack of infrastructure is a reason why heavy armoured forces can be constrained in operating in difficult terrain. Of course, that doesn’t mean we’re only going to operate in such environments, as our history shows. And the other point is that the Army does have the capability to build its own bridges, which has been enhanced in recent years.