Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

I've suspected this announcement would be made for a while now. What interests me is how the name 4RAR will be used in the future.

Its been bouncing around SOCOMD-A for a while. They have a groovy new cap badge with a dagger, double diamonds and the motto 'without warning' which is ironic considering how much warning there was for the name change.

4 RAR is going to stay on the books for a while as an 'inactive unit' but not disbanded apparently. Unfortunately for whomever gets linked or when its re-raised the mess funds are going to 2 Cdo Regt. So unlike the 8/9 RAR cash bonanza.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If Abe is around the place perhaps he could let those interested, know what's happening with the TUAV requirement for the Australian Army.

Well it hasn't bounded back to industry yet. Some good offers have been put together, like Boeing's mix of ScanEagle and Integrator and IAI Malat's prime for I-View 250. But I suspect an RFP will go out in competition to a FMS request for Shadow. Defence want to get some kind of commercial cost comparison for the tender (no sole source) but want an off the shelf solution (OTS being defined as in service). If so this would pretty much limit the competition to Shadow and Hermes 450.

 

[ando]

I can personally quote two CDO's that hate the new name of their Regiment. According to them they were all asked to vote on a new name for 4RAR and the "2 CDO" was the least popular. hehehe lots of us picking on them calling them second to Chocos. (All in jest of course.) They wanted something along the lines of 1st Australian Special Forces (Operations) Battalion.

4 RAR (COMMANDO) TO BECOME THE 2ND COMMANDO REGIMENT​

​

Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, today announced that Army’s 4th Battalion (Commando), the Royal Australian Regiment, (4 RAR Cdo) will be renamed as the 2nd Commando Regiment (2 Cdo Regt) on 19 June 2009.
The decision follows a comprehensive consultation process with current and previous serving members of 4 RAR (Cdo), as well as their families and support associations.
“While there were vast opinions to consider, we accepted the strong desire amongst current serving 4 RAR (Cdo) soldiers to rename the unit and effectively raise 2 Cdo Regt,” Lieutenant General Gillespie said.
“The name 2 Cdo Regt more accurately reflects the roles and capabilities of the commandos and their command structure, which are distinct from our conventional infantry battalions.”
Army’s infantry battalions are primarily used to seize and hold territory, where commandos focus on special operations including raids, interdiction of enemy communication lines, seizing points of entry and counter terrorism / hostage rescue.
4 RAR began transitioning in 1996 when Government directed Army to establish a second commando regiment with the ability to conduct special recovery and strike operations. 4 RAR (Cdo) is now nearing maturity as a special operations unit, and the name change to 2 Cdo Regt recognises this achievement as well as the skills and qualifications of its members.
“Army will continue to honour the contribution the past members of 4 RAR and 4 RAR (Cdo) have made to its rich history, and the unit name will not be lost. 4 RAR will remain on Army’s Order of Battle and may be reinstated in the future, if and when the need arises,” Lieutenant General Gillespie said.
The name 2nd Commando Regiment was chosen as it logically complements the existing 1st Commando Regiment, and also reflects the unit’s historical links to the Australian Independent Commando Companies that operated in the Southwest Pacific in the Second World War.
2nd Commando Regiment will join the Special Air Service Regiment, Incident Response Regiment, 1st Commando Regiment, the Special Forces Training Centre and the Special Operations Logistics Squadron as part of Army’s Special Operations Command.
Media contact: Defence Media Liaison: 02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664


I've suspected this announcement would be made for a while now. What interests me is how the name 4RAR will be used in the future.

Personally I suspect that one of the existing battalions will be "linked" to this name again and the obvious choice is 2RAR to once again become 2/4RAR.

OTOH perhaps we might be getting an extra infantry battalion in 5 years time, when the next White Paper is due and the existing ELF/HNA plans are largely executed.

Who knows?

 

[old faithful]

I only just found this thread.
Well, the white paper mentioned 10 bn sized manouvre groups....1.2.3.4.5.6.7.and 8/9RAR = 8....2 CDO regt = 9 SASR couldnt really be described as a manouvre unit, so maybe 9 Bn Division again, de Link 8 and 9 RAR?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I only just found this thread.
Well, the white paper mentioned 10 bn sized manouvre groups....1.2.3.4.5.6.7.and 8/9RAR = 8....2 CDO regt = 9 SASR couldnt really be described as a manouvre unit, so maybe 9 Bn Division again, de Link 8 and 9 RAR?

SOF are not considered manouvre units or battlegroup HQs but the infantry do not have a monopoly...

There are:

1 Armd Regt, 2 Cav Regt, 2/14 LHR (QMI), 1 RAR, 2 RAR, 3 RAR, 5 RAR, 6 RAR, 7 RAR and 8/9 RAR.

 

[old faithful]

ooops, forgot the black hats!

but realisticly, i cant see an armoured battle group being deployed without infantry, Think you find that all the armoured units would be deployed as part of a mechinized battle group, in support of 5 and 7 RAR. But also in support of all the other Infantry units. 2 Cav have only a very small number of vege,s, and their main role is recon anyway. So really if we discount 2 CDO and SASR, we are back to 8 bn sized battle groups.

Dont forget a battle group includes, ATY.Amour,Logisitics, med SF etc etc...
Cheers. Dave.

 

[splat]

2 Cav have only a very small number of vege,s,

whats a veg?an aslav?

 

[old faithful]

no, a vege is an assaut trooper, like armoured corp infantry.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

but realisticly, i cant see an armoured battle group being deployed without infantry,
Dont forget a battle group includes, ATY.Amour,Logisitics, med SF etc etc...
Cheers. Dave.

Yep. But the RHQ/BHQ of those 10 units in question are those set up to provide C2 for manoeuvre units. The RHQ of SASR or 1 Cbt Engr Regt (eg) are not established with the kind of staff and comms needed to form a manoeuvre battle group. You need one of those units to start the construction of a battle group.

The formation of any battle group would see a lot of cross attachment of sub units to create the required type of combat teams (squadron/company) plus the regular attachment of combat support sub units to enable manoeuvre (artillery, engineers, CSS, etc).

Typically there would be three types of battle groups formed: mechanised, motorised and light.

A typical (objective) mechanised battle group would be the RHQ/BHQ of 1 Armd Regt, 5 RAR or 7 RAR and have one tank squadron (M1A1) and two mechanised infantry companies (M113AS4) mixed together to create three combat teams each with a tank troop and two mechanised infantry platoons. Supporting these units would be a SP gun battery, a mechanised combat engineer troop and a combat service support team (with health, transport, repair and supply platoons).

A motorised battle group would be roughly similar but with an armoured cavalry squadron (ASLAV) and two motorised infantry companies (Bushmaster). A light battle group would have infantry companies supported by an armoured cavalry and tank troop. There is no strict rule. An armoured cavalry regiment could form an ISR battle group with attached snipers, STA battery and EW troop. If these battle groups are within a deployed brigade then they might not have so many attachments with those units kept under formation control.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

no, a vege is an assaut trooper, like armoured corp infantry.

The assault trooper ECN is obsolete they are now called cavalry scouts but keep the 'vegie' nickname. Each armoured cavalry section (2 ASLAV-25s, 1 ASLAV-PC) is meant to have a cavalry scout team of 6-7 dismounts. There are 27 sections per regiment (on paper). Most of the vegies in 2 Cav and 2/14 LHR come from the ARES light cavalry units. That is the principal role of light cavalry these days; producing vegie teams for the ARA armoured cavalry regiments.

 

[ari]

Does the Australian army have a parachute unit like the American Ariborne?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Does the Australian army have a parachute unit like the American Ariborne?

Sort of.

Army currently maintains a company level parachute insertion capability within the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR). Supporting assets including artillery (A Battery) and some combat support elements are also parachute qualified.

In saying that, 3RAR are about to give up the role and revert back to becoming an airmobile (ie: helo borne) light infantry battalion with the 2nd Commando Regiment [formerly 4RAR (Cdo)] about to take on the ready company group parachute insertion role.

It is nowhere near in size or capability similar to what the Americans maintain, but we do have a capability to insert forces by parachute.

Regards

AD

 

[winnyfield]

Conventional parachute infantry only works if you have enough of them otherwise they'd get steamrolled once on the ground. The Austn army's too small, therefore its seen as a raiding/commando capability.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Conventional parachute infantry only works if you have enough of them otherwise they'd get steamrolled once on the ground. The Austn army's too small, therefore its seen as a raiding/commando capability.

No it isn't, it's an insertion capability. No Army parachutes forces directly onto enemy positions, no matter how large the capability.

Parachuting is simply a means of transport. No different conceptually to walking, driving, flying or swimming. It's a means by which you get grunts where they need to be.

 

[nepolean77]

proud to be Australian

My brother has been to Athganistan and I am proud of him and his brothers in arms what a professional group of lads we have in uniform,well done lads keep it up.

 

[old faithful]

Well put AD, para insertion is just a means of transport, once on the ground, its largley a foot operation. 3RAR was (is) VERY well practised in walking!

3RAR maintained a high readiness company group, however, the whole Battalion and supporting units, includeing ARTY, field engineers, a para surgical team, logistics and int was capable of para deployment. EX Swift canopy in 1987 demonstrated this capability for the first time, with over 650 men deployed by parachute in Coen FNQ in one drop. Very impessive on the day! Supported by F111,s and the whole of 36 Sqn RAAF.

 

[stump1100]

And a fantastic sight it was too!

 

[hairyman]

German bidder holds fire on guns

From The Australian 24/6/09.


THE army's $450 million plan to acquire new 155mm self-propelled guns faces a one-year delay because of the complexity of the Defence Materiel Organisation's tender process.

The revelation comes as one of the two contenders to supply the artillery declined to participate in the final tender negotiation with the DMO.

German firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, whose PzH 2000 gun was favoured to win the contest to supply up to 18 guns to the army, has declined to participate in the offer definition and refinement process with the organisation.

KMW is competing against Raytheon Australia, which is teamed with Korean manufacturer Samsung Techwin, which is offering the AS-9 gun.

Senior government sources told The Australian yesterday that neither tender had fully met the DMO's tough contractual requirements. Only the Raytheon consortium has chosen to continue negotiations with the DMO.

According to informed sources KMW has cited problems with intellectual property as well as a requirement for more equitable risk-sharing with the commonwealth in its decision not to participate in the offer definition and refinement process.

Raytheon is now pushing hard for an early decision but the KMW tender offer will remain on the table and valid until next April.

Last month DMO chief Stephen Gumley told a Senate estimates committee there were a number of "technical issues" that had to be resolved before a decision could be made on a preferred tenderer.

The German firm, which is partnered with BAE Systems Australia, has offered brand new surplus Dutch army guns as part of its tender in the Land 17 project.

The PzH 2000 gun is in service with the Dutch military in Oruzgan province in Afghanistan and has impressed the Australian army with its all-round capability.

A final decision on Land 17, the project that will have the army equipped with both self-propelled and towed artillery, was expected by mid-2009.

The Rudd government's defence white paper, published last month, called for the acquisition of two batteries of self-propelled guns (a total of 12 guns) and four batteries of towed guns.

The Defence Department hopes to wrap up a decision on the towed artillery later this year, with the M777 howitzer, built in the US by BAE Systems, expected to be chosen.

 

[PeterM]

It seems to me that KMW has decided to pull the pin due to excessive delays and other procurement issues.

Why is the DMO wanting to extend this out, considering only the KMW and Raytheon bids were considered acceptable enough to be finalists and presumably offering appropriate solutions.

Raytheon is willing to go through the process and meet all the obligations set out by the DMO. KMW has decided not to continue it's bid.

It seems DMO is trying to bargain KMW against Raytheon (and vice versa)?

Drawing this process out will cost both companies alot of money. This process has already been drawn out alot.

 

[uuname]

With only 12 unit sales on offer, it's not exactly a big contract. It wouldn't be hard for a complicated bid process to eat in to any potential profit, especially if customisation was required.

Given they arren't even guaranteed to win, it's not too shocking a company just might not want to risk the time and money...