Just wondering....whats the population of Pakistan? Australia is approx 20 million.Interesting though, when I joined the Australian Army in 1985, the strength of the Army was 32000, with only six Inf battalions organised into 3 brigades. The Army of two,s dosnt really seem that new a concept.
Australian Army to increase by 2,600
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
Just a few more then Aus, around 165 million. And just a note to MG3, unless you can back up your " is that all" mentality with a reasonable answer, i should point this out.:coffee Pakistan devotes $4.26 Billion to its Military, Australia devotes $17.84Billion, and thats only last years, not including the $2 Billion spent on C-17, the upcoming LHD, and future projects, as well as conflicts. 2500 might not "make a dent" but it will sure as hell pack a punch!:ar15old faithful said:
Hmm, theres hope in this one.MG 3 said:
Thats the idea, hell, everyones doing, its the "in" thing these days, mobility is "in". The new battalion will be based in Adelaide, which means it has a direct road, rail and air corridor to Darwin, where the northern bases can be used to deploy. No moving to combine resources from seperate areas,uniteruppted supplies can be sent back and forth, combined training excercises are easier to logistically set up and it does a hell of a lot for Adelaide, the "happening" place
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We certainly DO have the resources to support a MASSIVE force if necessary, but it's not. As a rough guide, we currently devote around 1.8% of our GDP (our GDP is now over AU$1 Trillion per year) to defence and have a manpower force of around 4.9 million males and 4.8 million females aged between 18-49 which would be suitable for military service IF necessary.MG 3 said:
As can be plainly seen. With our resources and population base we could create a massively powerful and large defence force. Our political ties with the USA, means virtually no military capability is un-reachable for us politically, and if necessary we have a reasonably well developed nuclear industry (that will be enhanced if John Howard, our PM gets his way) that could produce nuclear weapons reasonably quickly if necessary.
However none of this is necessary.
Our defence forces are designed to maintain reasonably capable air and naval forces to interdict any realistic aggressor in the maritime approaches to our Country.
We also maintain a small but reasonably high quality land force capable of expanding to a reasonable size within a few years if necessary.
The army is comprised of regular (full time) and reserve (part time) components. The full time component comprises 6 infantry battalions, plus support armour, artillery, aviation and combat support elements.
This new announcement adds 2x additional regular infantry battalions plus (presumably) supporting assets. As such it's a 30% increase in the size of the available "deployable" forces. This is what makes the announcement significant.
In world terms, it's not much to write home about. In Australian terms, it's the biggest expansion we've had since we fought in Vietnam, which should also show it's significance...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Any personnel expansion is rare in Western militaries these days, so this is quite a significant thing.
I am also thinking that the Aussie Army for the past decades being the least prioritised service of the three services (Air Force, Navy, Army), it further underlines what capabilities are thought to be useful and needed in the future.
I am also thinking that the Aussie Army for the past decades being the least prioritised service of the three services (Air Force, Navy, Army), it further underlines what capabilities are thought to be useful and needed in the future.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Exactly. Since Vietnam Government hasn't really known what to do with Army IMHO, so they designed a "role" for it in the defence of Australia, as no other operation could apparently be envisaged.Grand Danois said:
Army's role was to maintain a small relatively light force capable of dealing with "minor" incursions that got through the "fortress" of our Air and Naval forces and their abilities to attack enemies in our maritime approaches.
It was expected that any enemy would be so heavily damaged that the best they would be able to do would be to land small "special forces" type units on Australian soil and as such Army was designed around "asset protection" and smallish "mobile" forces able to "clean up" any minor incursion.
The Australian Defence Force was not equipped or trained or support for "expeditionary" operations as was evidenced in 1987 when we were hard pressed to deploy even a single infantry company (120 men) to Fiji for "evacuation of civilians".
Thankfully such a ludicrous situation has been rectified, though we are in some ways still working towards "fixing" this problem. ADF is certainly NOT gaining a "strategic power" IMHO. We lack FAR too many capabilities and are far too small for that.
What we are developing is small, high quality forces that can contribute well to Coalition operations and light forces that can conduct "peace keeping" and "protected evacuation" type roles. To say we are developing forces capable of effecting the strategic situation ANYWHERE is overstating things a bit I think...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I believe it was the M113s assigned to Reserve units that are being decommissioned and replaced with LR Defenders. From what has been said about the role and use of Reserve it sounds like that is being done to reduce the ongoing operational costs of Reserve.MG 3 said:
Approx. 350 Regular M113s are being upgraded with new power packs, a turrent, etc. See the links below.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land106/land106.cfm
and
http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437&ListID=15
I assume the other approx. 350 will be mothballed in due course. Aussie Digger mentioned a project Land 400 that was looking at getting IFVs for Army, but I haven't found any details. My vote would be for the CV9040 (possibly with an ATGM like Javelin?)
A turret is a good idea. We are also introducing the Al-Talah in a turret version but most(about 500 excluding regular types) with heavy weaponary will have either TOW's or MILAN's. Sadly we dont have a single wheeled armoured vehical in the army. All the emphasis is on more and more M113's and Al-Talah's.
As has been pointed out somewhat, you have misunderstood the replacement of M113s. The reserves are set to remove the M113 and replace them with Defenders, although with the changing role envisioned for them, they may not be removed any time soon. In other posts its been mentioned that the ASLAVS have taken over any deployment role as in Iraq, where they spearheaded any movement and protected Embassy staff. The Bushmasters provide light armour to go with these convoys. Perhaps a larger purchase of Bushmasters will replace some of the M113s, while i'd go with a hybrid, being the SEP, which comes in tracked or wheel, and would be much better mission wise with lack of need for refueling.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Western Australian 10th Light Horse has already had it's M113's removed from service and replaced with the recon/surveillance variant (RSV) Landrover (same 4x4 Landrover as that which the "RFSU's" and SOCOMD use).icelord said:
All other reserve units are scheduled to have their M113's removed from service to be replaced with Landrovers and eventually the new recce/surveillance 4x4 variant chosen under Project Overlander. The HNA plan has already announced this.
The only reserve armoured unit that will have anything like the capability it has now, is the 12/16th Hunter River Lancers in Tamworth that are to be equipped with Bushmaster IMV's (funnily enough this unit is the "local unit" for Defmin NELSON's Parliamenty Secretary for Defence, Mr Sandy Macdonald...) This is the ONLY Reserve Armoured Corps unit that will get anything like an Armoured vehicle.
As to the ASLAV "spearheading the deployments". They have only done so because Army lacks a decent tracked armoured vehicle capable of being deployed to Iraq. Army's raves that the ASLAV's are the "best armoured vehicle in Iraq", yet they are not as well armoured as Stryker's. The phase 4 upgrade of the ASLAV is in fact intended to bring them close to this standard. They are certainly very limited in both firepower and armour protection compared to Bradley, Warrior or similar vehicles deployed by other nations and they're only true advantage over any other armoured vehicle in Iraq is their speed which should be obvious given that they are in fact wheeled...
I feel certain that if Army had M113AS3/4's or a decent new IFV in-service, 5/7RAR would not have taken Bushmaster's to Iraq. ASLAV probably still would have gone in their Cavalry role, but the infantry would have been carried in a decent tracked vehicle...
im not so sure AD, after speaking to some 2Cav digs,speed is a critical element when conducting convoy escort,the faster the convoy travels,the less vulnerable it is to IED attack,and ambush. If we were talking about assult,then definatly, a tracked ifv like bradley or warrier would be the go,but for convoy escort,a wheeled afv is preferable.Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There's no denying that any IFV or even an upgraded M113 is a better protected vehicle than any wheeled vehicle though. 2 Cav Regt pers are hardly unbiased. They love the LAV's as do all it's users. It's the Bushmasters I was referring to particularly...old faithful said:
Well, the bushmasters can't be that bad, the CDF is having 4 more added to the current 15 in Iraq. Plus, i got money says the infantry boys would be loving the Air con thats on board, but it would suck jumping out into the heat...Shot-gun being driverAussie Digger said: