Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

I would still think that 8 Hellfires per Tiger would be sufficient for ADF operations.

Tas

I agree.

To add to this, Army has shown interest in the DAGR or similar guided rocket system, given the majority of targets don't necessarily require a Hellfire, however it's all there is at present that's terminally guided from these helo's.

I think Army is correctly focussed on getting the helo's into operational service, before we worry too much about fleet size, weapons and sensor upgrades to the platforms...

As they are, once operational, they will provide a MASSIVE boost to Army capability.

I don't think the capability they will provide should be dismissed so lightly just yet...

 

[RubiconNZ]

I would still think that 8 Hellfires per Tiger would be sufficient for ADF operations.

Tas

Yeah I would agree with that, I don't imagine to many current situations where 8 hellfires would not be sufficent, it is good however to know should things go really pear shaped they can get the upgrade.

 

[Navor86]

They don't seem too odd to me in general. Too few is perhaps debatable but their IS a logic behind the numbers...

40x MRH-90 equates to replacement of 3x 12 strong Blackhawk Squadrons plus attrition / training helo's.

22x Tiger equates to 2x squadrons of 9 helo's (8x operational 1x rotational platform per squadron) plus 4x attrition / training helo's.

3 seems strange on the face of it I admit, but probably allows for 2x deployable helo's for fixed duration deployments, such as the CH-47D's have already done in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Well the 40 MRH for Army/SpecOps is a sufficent Number,but as with the arrival of the LHD at least another 6 for the Navy would be in a great effect.
As for the Tigers, another 8 for 30 on total would be good as you can have 2x13 Squadron which would allow a long time posting of 6 ARH on Ops(like the Dutch with thier 30 Apaches)

As for the Chinooks Yes it seems that 9 of them are good for 2 CH47 on longterm Ops,but 12 would alloe longterm Ops with some for Specops

@Aussie Digger
You still havent answered my Question,whether 4th RAR now has 4 Commando Companies+Tag East or 3 Commando Companies+Tag East

 

[AGRA]

@Aussie Digger
You still havent answered my Question,whether 4th RAR now has 4 Commando Companies+Tag East or 3 Commando Companies+Tag East

I'll answer. 4 RAR, never “4th RAR” or 4 R&R as some useless TV journo called it after PVT Worsely KIA, has three commando companies. Commando companies used to be bigger than the old rifle companies (with an extra fire support platoon) that were four to a battalion. But now with the HNA ORBAT are roughly the same as the new three inf coy per inf bn. One of the commando companies is also TAG-E.

 

[old faithful]

I'll answer. 4 RAR, never “4th RAR” or 4 R&R as some useless TV journo called it after PVT Worsely KIA, has three commando companies. Commando companies used to be bigger than the old rifle companies (with an extra fire support platoon) that were four to a battalion. But now with the HNA ORBAT are roughly the same as the new three inf coy per inf bn. One of the commando companies is also TAG-E.

errr ....thats PTE not PVT....only 1 and 2 RAR have 4 manned rifle coys. the rest of the regt operates and have operated since the 80,s with 3 rifle coys, 1x spt coy, 1x admin coy and BHQ.

support coy is structured= 1x DFSW pl (sustained fire MG/anti armour)
1x morter pl 6x81mm tubes
1xpioneer pl
1xrecon pl
1xsig pl (regimental sigs,infantry corp.)
the 4th rifle coy is a training coy,resposible for running courses. EG subject 2 for cpl infantry,and helping plan for exercises. it is usually manned by an OC Maj,CSM,wo2 CQMS staff sgt, 2-3 ptes clerks. and maybe a cpl or two on light duties.

 

[RubiconNZ]

errr ....thats PTE not PVT....only 1 and 2 RAR have 4 manned rifle coys. the rest of the regt operates and have operated since the 80,s with 3 rifle coys, 1x spt coy, 1x admin coy and BHQ.

support coy is structured= 1x DFSW pl (sustained fire MG/anti armour)
1x morter pl 6x81mm tubes
1xpioneer pl
1xrecon pl
1xsig pl (regimental sigs,infantry corp.)
the 4th rifle coy is a training coy,resposible for running courses. EG subject 2 for cpl infantry,and helping plan for exercises. it is usually manned by an OC Maj,CSM,wo2 CQMS staff sgt, 2-3 ptes clerks. and maybe a cpl or two on light duties.

Would it be planned that in a war time situation the 4th compnay would be remanned for each?

 

[old faithful]

no. for some operations the 4th coy may be manned by another coy from another battalion...rob peter to pay paul...1RAR was re-enforced by members of 2/4RAR for the somalia operation, but timor saw battalians deployed as they were, with numbers required to man the 3 coys they all ready had!3RAR toyed with a coy of kiwi,s from 2/1 RNZIR (Rangers) for combined operations...it lasted for about 1-2 years before it was canned.

 

[Aussie Digger]

@Aussie Digger
You still havent answered my Question,whether 4th RAR now has 4 Commando Companies+Tag East or 3 Commando Companies+Tag East

I thought I did, but anyway yes, 3x Commando Coys, TAG-East plus supporting elements.

 

[Grandstrat]

In light of the election victory, here's what ALP policy on their website says about the army size. Sorry I can't post links yet, but it is from the alp.org

"Our army is too small to meet our future security policy requirements. We would struggle if one or more countries in the arc of instability were to require a substantial military commitment.

In short, as we currently stand we need additional infantry battalions something now recognised by the Government. We also need to upgrade the army’s cultural and linguistic capabilities as they relate to the South West Pacific. Communication is critical to effectiveness."

Seems they support the extra troops, and the focus is back on pacific. There's alot of talk about making efficient purchases and complaints about the hornet and seasprite earlier on the page, but I have a feeling it will be like their policy toward the public service - they will be reluctant to change much in the end, despite the talk. They'll cut out a few things they think are inefficient and tend to let things be.

Thoughts?

 

[AGRA]

errr ....thats PTE not PVT.....

My bad :unknown Was talking Americanese yesterday morning where they use 'PVT' rather than 'PTE'. Where I come from its all GNR...

only 1 and 2 RAR have 4 manned rifle coys. the rest of the regt operates and have operated since the 80,s with 3 rifle coys, 1x spt coy, 1x admin coy and BHQ.

Not anymore. The high op tempo has seen 1 and 2 RAR's 4th companies been reduced to training company status.

support coy is structured= 1x DFSW pl (sustained fire MG/anti armour)
1x morter pl 6x81mm tubes
1xpioneer pl
1xrecon pl
1xsig pl (regimental sigs,infantry corp.)
the 4th rifle coy is a training coy,resposible for running courses. EG subject 2 for cpl infantry,and helping plan for exercises. it is usually manned by an OC Maj,CSM,wo2 CQMS staff sgt, 2-3 ptes clerks. and maybe a cpl or two on light duties.

This is the old ORBAT for an inf bn. The new HNA inf bn has:

BHQ
3x Inf Coy, with CHQ, 3 x Inf Pltn and 1x Mnv Supt Pltn
1x Mnv Spt Coy, with DFSW Pltn, mortar pltn (with 9x 81mm), etc
1x Cbt Spt Coy, with sig pltn, etc
1x CSS Coy

 

[Simon9]

My bad :unknown Was talking Americanese yesterday morning where they use 'PVT' rather than 'PTE'. Where I come from its all GNR...

GNR do this, and GNR do that as we say in other Corps.

Have the infantry battalions adopted the HNA structure yet? My understanding is that they're still in a transition phase.

 

[AGRA]

From what I’ve seen, being an inf outsider looking in, they are all over the place because of expansion and combat team level operational deployments. Rather than deploy entire infantry battalions they are deploying rifle company based combat teams so are chopping up a lot of the inf bn to do this.

The HNA structure is meant to be experimented by 1 RAR (?) but isn’t that different one a battalion level, but very different on a company/platoon level. Which hasn’t been implemented yet.

 

[old faithful]

Thanks for the info AGRA, when i joined,1985, there was a support section per coy, with 81mm,GPMG,and 84mm C G,s. they were just phased out and back to support coy. there was talk of introducing 60mm motors at Coy level,but that never got past the talk stage. Anyway, with the change of gov...who knows what will happen, Rudd talking about more INF...hope all the other arms corps expand accordingly.

 

[Navor86]

What really would be nice a delinking of 8/9 ans maybe something like a Marine Landing Btl under the Navy for Ops on the LHD
As concerning a possible Marine Infantry.
I possible think on something like the Royal Marines. So heavyiest vehicle would be the Bushamaster. No Tanks, no ASLAV which would come from the Army.
As for the Navy part.
2 HNA Type Marine Bns+1 MRH Sqn for Air Transport. Pure Light Infantry
What do other think. Would be 3 add Bn (9th RAR+2 Marines) be possible?

 

[Tasman]

Forming a separate Marine force along the lines of the RM would be an expensive and, IMO, wasteful exercise, given the small size of the ADF.

I do think there is merit, however, in the idea of forming a couple of battalions to specialise in amphibious operations and develop tactics, but which would remain part of the army.

In the case of helicopters I think it has to be accepted that the bulk of helos for amphibious operations will be supplied by the army, with the size and mix of helos varied according to operational needs. However, I would like to see a joint army/navy MRH-90 squadron formed to develop doctrine for LHD operations and to provide a permanent ship's flight of 4-6 helos for each.

Tas

 

[old faithful]

Forming a separate Marine force along the lines of the RM would be an expensive and, IMO, wasteful exercise, given the small size of the ADF.

I do think there is merit, however, in the idea of forming a couple of battalions to specialise in amphibious operations and develop tactics, but which would remain part of the army.

In the case of helicopters I think it has to be accepted that the bulk of helos for amphibious operations will be supplied by the army, with the size and mix of helos varied according to operational needs. However, I would like to see a joint army/navy MRH-90 squadron formed to develop doctrine for LHD operations and to provide a permanent ship's flight of 4-6 helos for each.

Tas

tas,this something that the ADF has toyed with already. While 3RAR was developing the Para role,5/7 was doing the same with Mech, 6RAR was working with the Tobruk regularly. 6RAR actually deployed to california in the late 80,s early 90,s to train with one of the marine expiditonary forces. this was a battalion deployment. 8/9 was motorised, and also worked with the Tobruk. So the basics are covered. 1 and 2/4RAR were then the ODF,air mobile and specialised in jungle warfare and SPE (services protected evacuation). pretty much all bases were covered for expansion. The main thing that we lacked in those times, was a def minister who would put his money where his mouth was!

 

[winnyfield]

What really would be nice a delinking of 8/9 ans maybe something like a Marine Landing Btl under the Navy for Ops on the LHD
As concerning a possible Marine Infantry.
I possible think on something like the Royal Marines.

The RMs are not really marine infantry, they're more of a raiding force (a little heavier than 4RAR and dare i say it, a little more 'conventional').

For infantrymen, the core skills are the same for land ops but littoral warfare/operations (entire spectrum of amphibious operations) is more dependent upon equipment. I suggest Australia should buy some surplus & modernised AAVs (similar to the Abrams procurement) - in terms of firepower and protection they can't be any worse than M113AS4 (they've also lost their swim capability)? Six AAVs accompanying an amphib battlegroup can lift 120-odd troops ashore.

Australian infantry are regularly trained to operate off helicopters so a similar model is possible.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What really would be nice a delinking of 8/9 ans maybe something like a Marine Landing Btl under the Navy for Ops on the LHD
As concerning a possible Marine Infantry.
I possible think on something like the Royal Marines. So heavyiest vehicle would be the Bushamaster. No Tanks, no ASLAV which would come from the Army.
As for the Navy part.
2 HNA Type Marine Bns+1 MRH Sqn for Air Transport. Pure Light Infantry
What do other think. Would be 3 add Bn (9th RAR+2 Marines) be possible?

I think it would be a waste and have mentioned this on other forums. Australia is not building an "opposed" landing amphibious capability, so why do we need specialist "marine infantry"? 3RAR AND 5/7RAR successfully performed "over the beach" landings in Timor, despite a focus on decidedly NON marine roles and exercise Sea Eagle is conducted every other year, proving our ability to conduct amphibious operations as is...

We don't have enough infantry (yet) to cover more than a brigade sized force on operations and our strategic goal is only to have a brigade sized force in one area and a battalion sized force in another.

It is costing $10b to raise 2x additional mechanised/motorised battalions and support elements.

Does another $10b for a role that is not a high priority in either Defence of Australia operations or the majority of overseas deployments seem like a worthwhile investment?

Not to me...

Army might be modelling itself on the USMC, but not entirely. No-one in ADF would seriously state that ADF has or indeed seeks a capability of the same level as the USMC...

 

[AGRA]

What really would be nice a delinking of 8/9 ans maybe something like a Marine Landing Btl under the Navy for Ops on the LHD
As concerning a possible Marine Infantry.
I possible think on something like the Royal Marines. So heavyiest vehicle would be the Bushamaster. No Tanks, no ASLAV which would come from the Army.
As for the Navy part.
2 HNA Type Marine Bns+1 MRH Sqn for Air Transport. Pure Light Infantry
What do other think. Would be 3 add Bn (9th RAR+2 Marines) be possible?

The entire Australian Army will be the equivalent of the US Marine Corps or Royal Marines. You could even say the entire ADF (including the RAAF) is a marine corps as our warfighting doctrine is called: Manoeuvre Operations in a Littoral Environment (MOLE).

The Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment System (ADAS) is designed to deploy, land and sustain a Combined Arms Battle Group including an M1 tank sqn, ASLAV armd cav sqn , SP155 arty bty, etc. Or it could be a light infantry based force or a Bushmaster mounted motorised infantry force if that is what is needed at the particular destination.

We don’t need a special “marine infantry” force. Going ashore is not the hardest thing in the world and you don’t need a dedicated specially trained and named force for it. The formation of the USMC and Royal Marines as distinct forces from the Army has a lot more to do with history and the need for shipboard naval security units in the age of sail than anything to do with modern amphibious warfare tactics.

Besides if the RAN wanted a specialised infantry force then from Australia’s history this would mean the re-formation of a “Her Majesty’s Australian Naval Brigade”. They have a proud history dating back to the Chinese Boxer Rebellion and the occupation of German New Guinea in WW1.

Army might be modelling itself on the USMC, but not entirely. No-one in ADF would seriously state that ADF has or indeed seeks a capability of the same level as the USMC...

I would disagree with that. The only reason we have a non-opposed landing capability is we can’t afford an opposed landing capability. Things like Armoured Amphibious Vehicles (like the EFV or BVS10) we used to have (A Amphib Assault Sqn, 15 NRL) and are reasonably cheap to acquire, raise and sustain. The real cost in an opposed landing capability is the kind of fire support from the sea needed. Traditionally this has meant only one thing – aircraft carriers.

 

[t68]

.

We don’t need a special “marine infantry” force. Going ashore is not the hardest thing in the world and you don’t need a dedicated specially trained and named force for it. The formation of the USMC and Royal Marines as distinct forces from the Army has a lot more to do with history and the need for shipboard naval security units in the age of sail than anything to do with modern amphibious warfare tactics.

.

Hi Guys


What are the main differences between Royal Marines ,USMC and the RAR ? (stores/weaponary/tactics)

What additional equipment would be needed to make life easier for the Regiments to become the main forces to land on the beach ?

I think it does have some merit in the idea that say 2 Battalions rotate and work with the LHD on a full time basis as we are becoming an army of 2s.


And to change the subject

Do you think the reserves should get the modified m113as3/4 instead 6x6 land rovers or maybe a couple of squadrons of Bushmasters so they can be more easier to support to regular Army when need ?




REGARDS
TOM