Ever since the guided rounds appeared on the scene HIMARS has been a very attractive proposition for Australia. It will be interesting to see if there is significant reserve involvement when the capability is acquired.
I would like to see reserve MANPAD units. With very light weight systems like stinger.
These A Res units could slot right into regular units and provide a very useful AA element.
Reg units to get the AMRAAM type.
Definitely room for Arty in ARAS, maybe not the AS9, but support for HIMARs could be useful.
ARES infantry could do the motorised roll and light Inf, leaving the RAR for Mech and Maritime rolls.
Kind of like the high/low mix of the RAAF.
These A Res units could slot right into regular units and provide a very useful AA element.
Reg units to get the AMRAAM type.
Definitely room for Arty in ARAS, maybe not the AS9, but support for HIMARs could be useful.
ARES infantry could do the motorised roll and light Inf, leaving the RAR for Mech and Maritime rolls.
Kind of like the high/low mix of the RAAF.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Looks like acquiring Stingers will be difficult.
It Will Be Years Before Raytheon Can Build New Stinger Missiles
The U.S. has been sending its Stingers to Ukrainian forces battling Russia.
www.defenseone.com
Well there are other options on the market such as Starstreak HVM which has been acquitting itself well in Ukraine. It's actually better than Stinger.Looks like acquiring Stingers will be difficult.
It Will Be Years Before Raytheon Can Build New Stinger Missiles
The U.S. has been sending its Stingers to Ukrainian forces battling Russia.
I'm not sure how man portable starstruck is. I like stinger because of its light weight.
RBS 70 and bolide missile is great, but it's a big heavy unit.
RBS 70 and bolide missile is great, but it's a big heavy unit.
The irony is that many of the more high end, complex systems are actually easier to store, maintain and train operators on than a lot of the more run of the mill systems. It takes a lot more time and training to churn out a trained infantryman or armored vehicle crewman than an operator on a highly automated system.
Also the high end stuff is only needed in high intensity conflict, which also suits reserves. Their effect is much greater than their numbers, and these small reserve troops, batteries, squadrons etc. can be added to deployable formations as required.
MRLS fits, but so to I suspect would longer range air defence, self propelled auto loaded 120mm mortars, non line of sight precision fires (Spike NLOS) etc. I would even go so far as to suggest heavy armor. Not all of it but have reserve units attached to the full time ACRs, using the same equipment and training facilities, enabling the ACRs to rapidly double or triple the number of deployable subunits.
Also the high end stuff is only needed in high intensity conflict, which also suits reserves. Their effect is much greater than their numbers, and these small reserve troops, batteries, squadrons etc. can be added to deployable formations as required.
MRLS fits, but so to I suspect would longer range air defence, self propelled auto loaded 120mm mortars, non line of sight precision fires (Spike NLOS) etc. I would even go so far as to suggest heavy armor. Not all of it but have reserve units attached to the full time ACRs, using the same equipment and training facilities, enabling the ACRs to rapidly double or triple the number of deployable subunits.
As Volk said, A Res need equipment that is easy to use and train with. Fire and forget type.
Stinger is all aspect IR, where as RBS 70 needs the operator to keep track on the target with a joy stick. I know a former RBS operator, and he tells me it's no easy feat to keep a fast mover in the sights. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Laser guided is near impossible to jam or counter, where as IR is easier to avoid. Firing multiple missiles at a target helps with this, like anti armour weapons, always sighted in pairs, never alone.
Stinger is all aspect IR, where as RBS 70 needs the operator to keep track on the target with a joy stick. I know a former RBS operator, and he tells me it's no easy feat to keep a fast mover in the sights. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Laser guided is near impossible to jam or counter, where as IR is easier to avoid. Firing multiple missiles at a target helps with this, like anti armour weapons, always sighted in pairs, never alone.
Yes complex skill sets that require extensive training and practice to achieve and maintain competence should be the domain of the full time ADF, while the capabilities that suitably trained personnel can maintain competence on with a lower level of practice can be assigned to the reserves. Its not about how sexy the gear or the role is, its about what level of effort is required to deliver capability.
Answering this is so critical and does not seem to be getting the attention it deserves.
Another option would be second-tier infantry brigades available for combat operations from Mobilisation + 90 (I would lean this way).
Others include not having a ARes at all, or restricting the ARes to former full-time members with the exception of specialised roles (e.g. Psych).
When was the last review of the role of the ARes done?
Regards,
Massive
With the extent of that disadvantage likely to be increased as the adoption of loitering munitions becomes ubiquitous (a trend likely to accelerate post-Ukraine).
I feel that loitering munitions will put CAESER-like gun-on-a-truck artillery in a difficult position.
Regards,
Massive
Takao
The Bunker Group
Yup. Even the majority of posters here have gone to kit first. I think kit is the last question - and I still think any E7+ or O4+ in the ARes should not be involved in the review....
The last review? Proper review? Years. I know it's being looked at at the moment as part of future Army and response to national disasters, but it's not going to be fundamental. It can't be.
By going to kit, you are defining a role.
Example is AA with easy to train with manpads , as I said before.
You will have units that require very little training to integrate with regular forces and become a force multiplier so to speak.
To make the A Res viable, they need to be able to mobilise quickly.
Take advantage of existing skills. Plant operators are another good example, construction engineers. Trades. I.T geeks.
Etc etc.
Have A Res that are ready to mobilise at much shorter notice.
These are skills that will be required to support regular army if needed in a major conflict.
Example is AA with easy to train with manpads , as I said before.
You will have units that require very little training to integrate with regular forces and become a force multiplier so to speak.
To make the A Res viable, they need to be able to mobilise quickly.
Take advantage of existing skills. Plant operators are another good example, construction engineers. Trades. I.T geeks.
Etc etc.
Have A Res that are ready to mobilise at much shorter notice.
These are skills that will be required to support regular army if needed in a major conflict.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
It is the perennial problem of the low hanging fruit, that is why most comments are system/equipment first. It is easier to assume the hole matches the 'selected/preferred' peg rather than working out, in the particular circumstances, what is the shape of the whole.
I would agree that E7+ and O4+ in the ARES/GRES shouldn't be involved in such a review (and I am an exARA E7) but I would also suggest that there are many so called experts (academics and analysts) that also should not be let anywhere near such a review (if it was ever held).
OldTex
Well-Known Member
That is a justifiable view of the ARES/GRES from an ARA perspective. In the majority of cases that would be the best use of transferrable skills within the ARES/GRES. But there are some in the ARES/GRES who do not want their part-time military experience to be merely an extension of their civilian employment (I know of an emergency medicine doctor who preferred to be a rifleman because it was so different to his day job).
Yes the ARES/GRES have to be useful to the Army, but is it by topping up specific skill pools or by providing additional capabilities. I suspect that the answer might be a case of a little of column A and a little of column B.
The only way to know would be to do a proper review.
I get that, but in the case of Army, if the good doctor wanted to play rifleman, but not doctor on weekends, I would find a more suitable rifleman.
It's also a case of Army getting the skills IT needs, not nessasarily what the potential soldier wants.
I'm sure there would be some dissapointed people getting slotted into jobs they don't really want, the defence force , both ARA and A/G Res would be full of them right now, but with careful , planned recruitment, the units that Army actually needs, could be formed.
Reserve forces would be great topping up logistics, even up skilling unemployed youth in warehouse skills like forklift driving etc.
Plenty of mechanics would like to work on MBTs and other vehicles they rarely see.
Plant operators building quick airstips instead of grading rural dirt roads, or building bunkers, techs working on some awesome electronics etc etc.
This is where A Res Nd G res would really benefit ARA, freeing up positions that can be done in part or wholly by reserve forces.
Make sure the attitude towards reserves is 100% changed and due respect for their skills is appreciated by ARA members.
No more "choko" mentality. That needs to end .
Care needs to be taken not to damage morale, not to destroy enthusiasm and motivation, unfortunately the ADF is expert at this.
I knew I bloke who joined the RAN to be a clearance diver, he passed all the selection with flying colours but because he was a qualified boilermaker he was posted as a marine technician. To add insult to injury, though he was a qualified tradesman, they forced him to redo everything the navy way and was given no seniority or recognition for the qualifications and skills that he had and was made subordinate to people less qualified and experienced than him. He had more brains, skills and higher level of competence than many a Charge rated CPO I came across but was judged purely on how long he had been in uniform, in fact, his obvious talent, maturity and leadership, was a hindrance as those ahead of him saw him as the threat.
My base trade was fitting and turning, I also qualified as a toolmaker during my apprenticeship and studied towards my dip mech eng concurrently with my trade studies. By my late twenties I was as qualified, or more qualified than what Army and Navy call Artificers, which is in itself, much better than the RAAF that lack a similar professionalization program for their senior technical personnel. Being a Gen X, this was after going to uni and graduating into the recession we had to have. Basically in the old days I would have been given seniority based on my qualifications and experience, let alone my time in reserves, not during the 90s and 2000s though, doing the ADF courses and spent time in rank was the only way to advance, i.e. you were always stuck behind less qualified and experienced people.
While at uni I was in the reserves as a rifleman, cross training as a sig, medic, and pioneer, as well as recon, this is how they kept us entertained in the uni regiments in between being used as training aids by officer cadets. It maintained our interest and aided in retaining us as our actual job was boring, frustrating and demeaning, though necessary. I moved across to RAAC when I finished uni and started my apprenticeship, on a number of occasions I was approached to move to RAEME, but there was no motivation to do so, I would have been bottom of the pile again, while most of the guys there were great, being told how to suck eggs by the couple who weren't wasn't my idea of a good time.
A long time failing of the ADF and ex ADF members, is some who have no idea whatsoever of civilian skills and qualifications, assume you only know how to do things if you learnt it during an ADF trade or promotion course. A true irony is defence currently has a large number of people who think they are highly qualified and experienced because they have been told how good they are, but have never worked outside of the structured, contractor supported environment defence has become. In many cases, they are not actually suitably qualified or experienced to undertake their supposed specialty in civilian employment.
This is where I would land though I feel that it could be taken further. The ARA could be formed into two (very) heavy brigades and a single littoral brigade (special operations capable in a US Marine Corps sense), with ARes being formed into 3-4 2nd-tier light infantry brigades.
ARes would need to be in protected vehicles, and have appropriate capabilities - including SHORAD (Stinger), NLOS & Loitering Munitions.
Regards,
Massive
This feels like such a waste of military training.
Surely a National equivalent of the SES (full & part-time) would make more sense - focussed training, right equipment etc.
Regards,
Massive