StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Same as they do now I assume. I don't see any reason why they should change. These ships are replacing the current ships, other then scale it doesnt change much.
no change. any rapid reaction will be drive out of JOC and depending on the event will involve the readies and/or specials
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
2RAR is the battalion that most often conducts "amphibious" operations. It is not directed per se to provide such a capability, it depends on the taskings required of 3 Brigade, which battalion is "on line" at a particular time and what Army's exercise schedule is, but Exercise Sea Lion is ADF's premier Amphibious warfare exercise and 2RAR is almost exclusively the battalion assigned to these training operations.
In reality a taskforce will be deployed for operations and it will comprise whatever battalion or battalion + force is available for operations at that particular time.
It may even be possible for some pre-deployment training (workups) to be undertaken if enough notice is available, but at the end of the day, ADF will have to provide what it can.
We simply do not have the resources or the need to maintain a Marine Corps unit. Such would only detract from Army's overall capability and resource base.
It may be that providing an amphibious warfare capability in the longer term may become one specific battalion's particular role, but I doubt it. Army wants it's battalions to be nice and flexible and this type of organisation is not conducive to that idea....
Btw, there is NO chance that Army will be acquiring EFV. LCME-1E, helos and RHIB's will be the only insertion methods available to Army from the LHD's...
Cheers
AD
Thanks for the info guy's, much appreciated. Just another quick question, will there be a permanent attachment of the Tiger's on the Canberra's or will that also be on a needs basis as well ? Where are the Tiger's located ? I would assume that on short notice they would be available with the troops. Would they sail from FBE and load from Townsville for instance on the way to a situation ? I didn't think we would have much chance of getting the EFV (Particulary when you look at the current forecast unit price)
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I don't think any aircraft will be permanently attached to the Canberra class.
I'm fairly sure the ARH's are based in Darwin, with 1st Brigade.
I don't see why we would need EFV, our forces are predominantly fairly light. The first wave in any assualt would be infantry landed by helicopter. Armoured Vehicles can come ashore aboard landing crafts later on.
I don't see why the USMC need them either quite honestly, unless they plan on carrying out opposed landings WW2/Korean war style. *Puts on helmet and hunkers down for the expected "the USMC needs them because....."*
winnyfield
New Member
An amphib capability could be added to LAND 400 (IFV program). May not be the 20+ knots of the EFV, but it could be useful to cross rivers and wade ashore
One assumes the Commandos will evolve to take up an expanded maritime role. I would like to see another RAR re-rolled to Commando, giving Aus two battalions, this would allow for at least one expanded Company strength unit + plus support being dedicated to which ever Canberra is active at the time. The Commando company can then provide direct support to SASR boat troop, the same way the US Rangers / UK SFSG currently support their tier one Maritime assets by proving the outer defensive cordon during strategic raiding operations.
When some websites say 16-24, the number of helicopters is very flexible in what types the LHD will carry at any time or normally... including Seahawks. In my mind that is the beauty of the ship...
Agree with you there Toby, they will indeed be an incredibly flexible piece of kit
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
1. No.
2. There are huge problems with the Tiger going to sea at all...
3. The Tigers are based at Oakey in Queensland and Darwin in the Northern Territory.
4. The LHD's will load wherever the main elements of the taskforce is to deploy from. In reality this will mean Brisbane, Townsville or Darwin, though in future it could mean Adelaide as well.
5. LAND 400's (armoured vehicle replacement program) request for information has been released. There is nothing about an armoured amphibious insertion capability contained within these documents...
Cheers
AD
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We've got two Commando regiments already. The problem of expanding same is the size of our overall force. With only 7 infantry battalions (let's be honest, the infantry are the backbone of the special forces) the "pool" to draw on in Australia is rather limited and our special operations capability is already large in comparision to the overall size of the land force.
If our force structure can't support a dedicated "apmhibious" battalion capability, then operating yet another special forces unit dedicated to such a role, is not likely to be all that viable. At best an extra Commando Company might be added to 2Cdo, but they already have a strong focus on water operations and an additional company isn't going to make a massive difference.
At the end of the day, ADF's "amphibious capability" is being improved, but it's going to remain limited and will not feature "USMC style" opposed over the beach landings. The style we will be conducting, will be similar to that conducted by 5/7RAR in the Oecussi province in East Timor during Interfet, which was in fact conducted with little to no actual training whatsoever.
Any "harder" operations are unlikely to be taken on by us under any circumstances anyway. Our Government won't let our conventional forces undertake combat operations even in Afghanistan. What chance in a type of operation where it would be likely that SERIOUS casualties would be incurred?
there are many "commando" missions that can be carried out by well trained infantry, and all of our infantry are well trained. In the late 1980,s early 90,s 3RAR based some tactics that were "borrowed" directly from the RLI (rhodesian Light Infantry) These tactics proved to be very effective, and to my knowledge,are still employed today. If it interests anyone, there was a book called FIREFORCE that out lines some of the tactics used. Good read, dont recall the authers name.
winnyfield
New Member
Dug up this 2010 Sea Power Conference address. Army's looking to get get more than a raiding/light infantry capability.
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/docs/SeaPowerConference.pdf
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/docs/SeaPowerConference.pdf
here is an image of an Australian operator clearly wearing non auscam camouflage...
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/May/20100517/20100327_TF66_1183.jpg
just asking, is this up to the individual or are these uniforms supplied by the department(or whatever it is called). but seeing as there is some number of these people wearing these cams i wouldn't think it is the former...
These are Spec Ops pers they are not restricted by rules & regulations like the conventional army we have the same with the NZSAS here in NZ they wear what best suits there roles & trg.
I can see the NZ Army switching to the new UK Cam pattern, simply because it is designed to be used both in A-Stan and Europe. Typical NZ terrain colouring (dark and light greens) is more akin to areas of Northern Europe than remote areas of Aus, so investing in a multi terrain tried and tested single pattern will save money, plus it looks pretty gucci. The US will be switching this year to the a version of the same.
winnyfield
New Member
Afghanistan universal cammies for the regulars - ‘Mid point’ camouflage pattern uniform
Operation SLIPPER Afghanistan - Department of Defence
A hi-res: http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/gallery/2010/20100524/20100521adf8206488_172.jpg
Operation SLIPPER Afghanistan - Department of Defence
A hi-res: http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/gallery/2010/20100524/20100521adf8206488_172.jpg
from Australia Selects Ocelot LPV for Army Vehicles Programme - Army Technology
Australia Selects Ocelot LPV for Army Vehicles Programme
28 May 2010
Force Protection's Ocelot light protected patrol vehicle has been selected for the Australian Army's LAND 121 phase 4 programme.
The LAND 121 Project Overlander phase 4 programme involves the procurement of light protected mobility vehicles to replace the army's fleet of Land Rovers.
Australian Minister for Defence Materiel and Science Greg Combet said three Australian firms would be awarded up to A$9m (US$7.5m) each for the development of 1,300 prototype vehicles.
Developed by Team Ocelot, the Ocelot light protected patrol vehicle incorporates a V-shaped hull for blast-protection with modular flexibility and provides the highest levels of survivability to the troops.
The Ocelot can be reconfigured to undergo a wide range of missions including patrol, fire support and protected logistics.
Australia Selects Ocelot LPV for Army Vehicles Programme
28 May 2010
Force Protection's Ocelot light protected patrol vehicle has been selected for the Australian Army's LAND 121 phase 4 programme.
The LAND 121 Project Overlander phase 4 programme involves the procurement of light protected mobility vehicles to replace the army's fleet of Land Rovers.
Australian Minister for Defence Materiel and Science Greg Combet said three Australian firms would be awarded up to A$9m (US$7.5m) each for the development of 1,300 prototype vehicles.
Developed by Team Ocelot, the Ocelot light protected patrol vehicle incorporates a V-shaped hull for blast-protection with modular flexibility and provides the highest levels of survivability to the troops.
The Ocelot can be reconfigured to undergo a wide range of missions including patrol, fire support and protected logistics.