Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

I thought North-Force was largely made up of indigenous Australians? They are ideally suited to the local environment, but still represent a tiny proportion of eligible military age males within Australia. What percentage of the Australian population is classed as indigenous?

My argument about the Gurkha's is the ability to recruit and train the required numbers quickly. The UK accepts approximately 250 per-year and yet receives over one hundred times that number in applicants. You would be pushed to realise those figures in Australia. I know the Aus Government was debating recruiting Islanders, so why not build on the current Gurkha recruiting, selection and training infrastructure to create a UK/ANSAC light infantry brigade?

 

[old faithful]

we are a country of over 20 million people with an army of under 30,000.
We need to recruit like the 80,s, offer an attractive incentive like the DFRDB system, a pension after 20years service. recruiting with army staff going around to the schools, not out sourceing infficient recruitment sub-contractors that have proved that they cant do the job!
I know when i signed up the second time, there were over 100 applicants, they took 3 of us, 2 were ex army members and 1 was ex navy. they can get the numbers, i refuse to believe they cant.
recruiting from overseas, and adding a forgein legion type regt to the Army is totally unacceptible IMO.

 

[PeterM]

Manpower is a big problem for all areas of the ADF. Some major changes are needed so the ADF can recruit and more importantly retain the numbers needed; particularly with the increased manpower requirements to sustainably maintain our considerable overseas deployments.

I don't think the gap year program is sufficient.

With the current low levels of unemployment, careers in the ADF are not attractive enough. The ADF has tried for many years to boost numbers by established means, but that hasn't worked so far. Something needs to be done to redress the situation. There is no magic solution and it will take some time; but at this stage all realistic options should be on the table for consideration. I guess the question is what is a viable option.

 

[old faithful]

as far as recuiting indigenous soldiers is concerned, they are doing a great job in the reserves, particulary the regional surveilence forces like Nor force , the pilbra regt, and 51FNQR. However, thats where it stops, and rightly so. Due to cultural reasons, these blokes are much better off serving in a part time unit, in their local area. particulary in the remote areas of northern Australia. they are great at what they do, but you cant expect them to move away from their family and country, as its a 60,000 year link to their land. they know everyone in their comunity, from birth till death, and the regular army,s ways would totally confuse and frustrate them. Indigenous soldiers are extremly valuable and capable, but only in their nieche, and it aint broke, so no need to fix it at the moment.
Recruitment could be done in a similer way to the UK in the larger centres, each Bn responsible for signing up the recruits. Take it away from the ineffecient orgs like "man power" etc, they have already proven they cant do the job.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wasn't Australia offered Ghurka regiments when Hong Kong was handed back?
These units were eventually decommissioned.

This was well before the war on terror. The ADF's strategic needs have certainly changed.

Considering the chronic manpower shortages faced by the ADF, it may be worth reconsidering having a Ghurka battalion to increase our operational strength. Ghurkas are quality light infantry; It has worked very effectrively for the British; the ADF could leverage the British experience if required.

It is not the ideal solution, but we do need frontline soliders and haven't been able to attract anything like the numbers the ADF needs in some time; that is not including the low retention rate.

Australia has plenty of "frontline soldiers" (well enough for our likely purposes anyway). Infantry recruiting for example has recruited at MORE than 100% over the last several years.

The influx of recruits was so high in 2007 for instance that 1RAR was forced to run it's own IET course for regular soldiers. The School of Infantry at Singleton was unable to cope with the influx in 2007.

What the ADF lacks is "critical trades" and these cannot simply be recruited off the streets. Qualified tradespeople will earn far more in "civvy street" than they will in ADF without the associated service conditions and requirements of service life.

A regiment of Ghurkas, an Australian based Pacific Islander Regiment or any other such idea is not going to address this issue. Nor will it address even more critical personnel shortages within Navy.

 

[battlensign]

Australia has plenty of "frontline soldiers" (well enough for our likely purposes anyway). Infantry recruiting for example has recruited at MORE than 100% over the last several years.

The influx of recruits was so high in 2007 for instance that 1RAR was forced to run it's own IET course for regular soldiers. The School of Infantry at Singleton was unable to cope with the influx in 2007.

Wouldn't that simply mean that now is the time to recruit those people to create as many light infantry battalions as possible?

Brett.

 

[lobbie111]

Wouldn't that simply mean that now is the time to recruit those people to create as many light infantry battalions as possible?

Brett.

That just stretches the ADF's resources even further, to the point where the only training troops will get would be Basic training, exactly what the ADF wants to avoid, its better to have a fewer number of highly trained battalions rather than a lot of relatively lightly trained battalions.

As you have said AD its trades that are lacking, I personally believe its the fault of the ADF's practise of subcontracting, once you subcontract out you loose moeny because those companies are motivated by profit and as thus require a margin of profit, also you are exposing ADF members to companies that tell them that they can earn twice as much and do half the work.

I say bring back national service

 

[battlensign]

That just stretches the ADF's resources even further, to the point where the only training troops will get would be Basic training, exactly what the ADF wants to avoid, its better to have a fewer number of highly trained battalions rather than a lot of relatively lightly trained battalions.

As you have said AD its trades that are lacking, I personally believe its the fault of the ADF's practise of subcontracting, once you subcontract out you loose moeny because those companies are motivated by profit and as thus require a margin of profit, also you are exposing ADF members to companies that tell them that they can earn twice as much and do half the work.

I say bring back national service

Those are probably good points......but the reality is that our region requires more light infantry, and they are probably the easiest and cheapest to equip out of anything we could add. I think one of the smartest comments ever made by Professor Dibb was that we may need up to 12 light infantry battalions in the future. Too bad he was wrong on all the other fronts. To be fair though, IIRC, even his plan called for 3% of GDP funding.

Brett.

 

[winnyfield]

^Why would we need Gurkhas when we when can recruit polynesians


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21209445-31477,00.html

Call to recruit soldiers in Pacific
Mark Dodd | February 12, 2007

A CHRONIC shortfall in Australian Defence Force recruits could be fixed by opening the door to Pacific Islanders wanting to emigrate, two of the nation's most respected defence analysts said yesterday.

Hugh White and Anthony Bergin called on the Government to look to our region for new ADF recruits by offering Australian citizenship in exchange for military service.
While there are no immediate plans for such a move, the proposal has not been ruled out by Defence Minister Brendan Nelson.

Recruiting from our region would be consistent with Australia's skilled migration program and would create a closer and more confident relationship with troubled regional states such as East Timor, Fiji and the Solomon Islands, said Professor White from the Australian National University.

.......

 

[Navor86]

Even if this article is from 2007 I have a few Questions.
Currently the Aus Army has around 28k Soldiers and not 30k so are there plans to bring the Aus Army to 36k Soldiers as indirectly mentioned by the article
Those Expansions plans are they those anounced in iirc 06 with the creation of 8/9 and delinking of 5/7,or is this a step further with a further increase with yet to be announced Units?

 

[battlensign]

Even if this article is from 2007 I have a few Questions.
Currently the Aus Army has around 28k Soldiers and not 30k so are there plans to bring the Aus Army to 36k Soldiers as indirectly mentioned by the article
Those Expansions plans are they those anounced in iirc 06 with the creation of 8/9 and delinking of 5/7,or is this a step further with a further increase with yet to be announced Units?

You need an Army/Infantry specialist (not a defence generalist (navy oriented) person such as me), however, I wouldn't be supprised if there were a component of the Soldier 2012 program here (I think that was the name). It had been the case that battalions were only incorporating 3 fighting companies, but this was to be increased with the Manouvre Support Company (which if my math is any good would make 4 companies).

There may be more to it as well. But I understood that the first 1500 people announced in 2005/6 were to remove some of the 'hollowness' and then another 2600 or so were to come from new units announced in 06/07. I am not sure if there was anyone talking of 36K though. 34k maybe. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the topic can be of further assistance?

Brett.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You need an Army/Infantry specialist (not a defence generalist (navy oriented) person such as me), however, I wouldn't be supprised if there were a component of the Soldier 2012 program here (I think that was the name). It had been the case that battalions were only incorporating 3 fighting companies, but this was to be increased with the Manouvre Support Company (which if my math is any good would make 4 companies).

There may be more to it as well. But I understood that the first 1500 people announced in 2005/6 were to remove some of the 'hollowness' and then another 2600 or so were to come from new units announced in 06/07. I am not sure if there was anyone talking of 36K though. 34k maybe. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the topic can be of further assistance?

Brett.

Infantry 2012 hasn't been finalised yet (1RAR is currently conducting the trial, 6RAR having been deployed on ops, so the task had to be taken off them).

The general idea however is to "reduce" a battalion to 3x permanent rifle companies, from the current nominal 4x rifle companies per battalion.

I say nominal because it's my experience that few if any battalions actually maintain 4x fully manned companies.

What the new structure will add, is a maneuvre support platoon per rifle company.

The "maneuvre support company" is currently known as support company and includes direct fire support weapons platoon, mortar platoon etc and is already extent within battalions.

As to overall numbers, I think any figure is nominal at best because battalions are in a fairly constant state of flux with the posting cycle, retention and recruiting efforts etc.

The "online battalion" in 3 brigade (ie: the battalion kept on high readiness within Army for "rapid" deployment, and it rotates, so no point asking "which one" it is at present) is likely the only battalion that actually goes close to meeting the "structure" of a battalion on paper...

An easier figure to manage would be to count operational battalions. At present Army should be able to provide 6 full time battalions, (1,2,3,4,5 and 6) with 2 still forming (7 and 8/9RAR) and without evidence to the contrary I'd expect they are mostly meeting the manning levels required of them, given the numbers of infantry recruited over the past few years.

The difficulty with this method is of course, that elements of a lot of them are on ops continuously at present...

 

[battlensign]

Infantry 2012 hasn't been finalised yet (1RAR is currently conducting the trial, 6RAR having been deployed on ops, so the task had to be taken off them).

The general idea however is to "reduce" a battalion to 3x permanent rifle companies, from the current nominal 4x rifle companies per battalion.

I say nominal because it's my experience that few if any battalions actually maintain 4x fully manned companies.

What the new structure will add, is a maneuvre support platoon per rifle company.

The "maneuvre support company" is currently known as support company and includes direct fire support weapons platoon, mortar platoon etc and is already extent within battalions.

As to overall numbers, I think any figure is nominal at best because battalions are in a fairly constant state of flux with the posting cycle, retention and recruiting efforts etc.

The "online battalion" in 3 brigade (ie: the battalion kept on high readiness within Army for "rapid" deployment, and it rotates, so no point asking "which one" it is at present) is likely the only battalion that actually goes close to meeting the "structure" of a battalion on paper...

An easier figure to manage would be to count operational battalions. At present Army should be able to provide 6 full time battalions, (1,2,3,4,5 and 6) with 2 still forming (7 and 8/9RAR) and without evidence to the contrary I'd expect they are mostly meeting the manning levels required of them, given the numbers of infantry recruited over the past few years.

The difficulty with this method is of course, that elements of a lot of them are on ops continuously at present...

Thanks for that AD

1) Any chance of getting a 4th Company (all with the extra support platoons)? - I know, I am greedy!

2) What size is the Australian Army hoping for, in terms of regulars, now? 33/4K?

Brett.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for that AD

1) Any chance of getting a 4th Company (all with the extra support platoons)? - I know, I am greedy!

2) What size is the Australian Army hoping for, in terms of regulars, now? 33/4K?

Brett.

As to a 4th company? Sure. Why not. Every battalion in the Australian Army can and should have a 4th rifle company. So long as you can provide the funding and the staff for 21x odd battalions to maintain an extra rifle company, plus the elements necessary to support same? You know, Landrovers, Unimogs, Bushmasters, small arms, uniforms, radios, rations etc, plus administrative matters like, barracks, training facilities etc...

As to numbers, I've no idea. The mouthpieces (Joel Fitzgibbon, Brendan Nelson etc) care about that sort of detail, but given that no matter how many battalions exist, there was always around 5000 personnel involved in the old "Training Command" and around 10,000 in the old "Support Command" it puts into perspective the numbers at the "sharp end" of our (formerly) 26,000 odd strong regular force...

All up, Army is funded to something like 54,000 including part time and full time troops.

I think the Full-Time component of Army is intended to grow to comprise somewhere around 28,000, plus 15,000 in the "Training and Support commands" (whatever they are called these days) and the remainder are part time soldiers.

Don't quote me on the exact breakdown, but it's something like that. I'm pretty confident about the 54,000 number though.

Cheers

AD

 

[Navor86]

So if I have understood you right,than the increase will be 2000 in the regular Force?
EDIT
I just checked wiki and its Numbers say that currenty the Army has around 40k(Reserve+Regular) So at what Point do tjey want to have thosee 54k Soldiers?
So currently there are 26k all in all active-15k Support which leads all in all to 11k active for Combat and this shall grow to 28kactive +15k support?

 

[Greenskin]

G'day,
Im a Recruit Instructor at 1RTB and i have say, the whole gap year program is a load of hot cock. The attatude from these kids is a lot different (shit)compared to the recruits that complete the 80 day program.
I say can this crap and spend the money on young people who want to make a career out of soldiering and stop wasting Training Commands time.

 

[Aussie Digger]

So if I have understood you right,than the increase will be 2000 in the regular Force?
EDIT
I just checked wiki and its Numbers say that currenty the Army has around 40k(Reserve+Regular) So at what Point do tjey want to have thosee 54k Soldiers?
So currently there are 26k all in all active-15k Support which leads all in all to 11k active for Combat and this shall grow to 28kactive +15k support?

Wiki ain't all that accurate. You or I could go there now and change the number to whatever we wanted.

Army for a long time was capped at about 50,000. Then the Howard Government authorised an increase for Hardening and Networking the Army program of about an extra 1500 positions.

Then the Howard Government authorised the Enhanced Land Force project which added an additional 2600 positions, bringing the authorised strength to around 54,000.

I expect this figure won't change much (unless perhaps negatively) over the next few years, as even if no changes occur, Army will take time to build this number of additional forces.

G'day Greenskin, welcome to the boards mate. What are your thoughts on Army's recruiting efforts at present?

Are the positions on the recruit courses being filled? Are the recruits still taking a long time from their initial applications to get to Kapooka?

Regards

AD

 

[barra]

G'day,
Im a Recruit Instructor at 1RTB and i have say, the whole gap year program is a load of hot cock. The attatude from these kids is a lot different (shit)compared to the recruits that complete the 80 day program.
I say can this crap and spend the money on young people who want to make a career out of soldiering and stop wasting Training Commands time.

Have seen the Gap year mob getting around at Willytown. Who would want to join up after being treated like a recruit for a year? Three months was bad enough.

 

[Capt. Picard]

I think its important that the Army and its personel treat the gap year recruits as well as is reasonable. If you want to interest young people in a career in the Army, having an poor attitude to them could possibly take away their motivation to continue.
Instead of resenting them for wasting you precious Army money, look at them as people who were motivated enough to serve at a time when interest in an Army career and defence is low, and the rewards for doing anything else is high.

 

[lobbie111]

What they need to do IMHO is only the basics and tease them with the "fun" stuff, I thought the gap year was deisgned as a fishing hook to catch more personnel? Correct me If im wrong though...