You are more than welcome to kick us off with whatever you would like to discuss
The Plan Beersheba orbat has 3x armd cav regts each with 3x armd cav sqns. What mix of ISR or lift these sqns are remains to be seen. Also Beersheba identifies that the optimal force structure is an army of fours, so four brigades would be best. However it also recognises that there is a very low likelihood of being endorsed for a fourth brigade. Since there is a seventh infantry battalion it would only take another 3,000 soldiers (plus their loading for training and force level support) to bring a fourth manoeuvre brigade into being.
Thanks Abraham. T68, there's your increase in numbers, not more infantry, more cav to make better use of the infantry.:australiaThe Plan Beersheba orbat has 3x armd cav regts each with 3x armd cav sqns. What mix of ISR or lift these sqns are remains to be seen. Also Beersheba identifies that the optimal force structure is an army of fours, so four brigades would be best. However it also recognises that there is a very low likelihood of being endorsed for a fourth brigade. Since there is a seventh infantry battalion it would only take another 3,000 soldiers (plus their loading for training and force level support) to bring a fourth manoeuvre brigade into being.
And what about the Canadian approach?
Wouldnt it be enough when this proposed 4th Brigade would only contain a few assets.
Thanks for the info, I understand where they are coming from now with this requirement. The JMEC is along the lines of what I was thinking, multi role and as described in the attached article I found a "street sleeper"
Because we want to be able to deploy a battalion based amphibious ready group (ARG) not just a company based amphibious ready element (ARE). Plus the required amphibious skill sets are needed far more in battalion headquarters and combat support units than they are in infantry platoons. For an infantry platoon amphibious warfare is trying not to be sea sick when riding the boat to shore. Unlike a parachute capability which requires knowing how to parachute and form up on the ground after being dispersed by a jump. But for a unit staff amphibious warfare changes a whole range of things they need to do.
Sure. With 7 RAR based in Adelaide you have a kernel for the 4th Brigade. Just start building it up as much as possible with each new unit you can get funding for until it’s a full 3,800 strong brigade. Might take 20 years but is worth the effort. 3 RAR can be moved to Darwin (they deserve it) to bring 1 Bde up to full strength and 3/4 ACR take over their new lines at Townsville.
Phase 3 of JP 2048 is defined as replacing ALL amphibious watercraft including the lighterage, the LARCs and the LCMs. Current inventory lighterage is the appropriately named Naval Lighterage Equipment (NLE) and is the old WWII designed stuff.
Any double ended LCM can be hooked up to form a causeway including the LCM1E. This is usually only done if you have a difficult beach and a larger bow door ship coming in that can’t get to shore. Perhaps something you would do with the new Phase 5 ~1,200 tonne ship is rope together a couple of LCMs (LCM1E or FLC) to form a causeway out to where the landing ship can come in and offload onto the aft of the outwards LCM.
Aware of that, probably should have made that a bit clearer, was thinking more along the lines of if the tactical situation permits, and depending on the mission this could potentially be a much faster method of getting much needed equipment ashore, especially in Disaster relief etc where time is of the essence, and port facilitys in an obvious bad way. That way the LCM/FLC can do an initial run to the beach off-load and progressively link up to allow follow on equipment from the LPA/D's etc to offload ? Just a thought
LOL! 3 para bn,s....why? When was the last real use of parachute insertion that went right?
Just to bring this point across from the Hypothetical Carrier thread
The LHDs when carrying the ARG will carry more than two Tigers. The requirment is a squadron of Tigers, which probably amounts to six or so. Only when a single ship is carrying the ARE will only a pair of Tigers be carried.
Actually operational para drops are witnessing a bit of a renaissance. UK 1 Para (SFSG) have jumped into action in Afghanistan in recent months, marking the Parachute Regiment's first combat drop (Coy Level) since the Suez crisis in 1956. SF have been jumping in with dogs / translators strapped to their fronts. I'm sure SASR will be undertaking similar operations and theoretically there's no reason why they won't be supported by regular Oz Para's in the future?
These are all SOF jumps which are apples to oranges compared to a conventional airborne force. SASR have 2 Cdo Regt to provide the same role as 1 Para.
Whilst in support of SF, 1 Para have been inserted using conventional parachutes (operational deployment at 250 feet) to provide cut-off groups / outer cordon. So technically there's no reason why 3RAR couldn't fulfill the same role in support of SASR. My main argument being Coy sized conventional para drops are not confined to the history books and remain a credible option outside the confines of the SF community (HALO/HAHO). The SFSG are not free-fall trained, unlike their SF/Pathfinder Platoon counterparts.
Except SASR would turn to 2 Cdo Regt to provide this role. This is the job of 1 Para, 2 Cdo and 75 Ranger Regt to provide direct action SOF capability. 3 RAR like 2 and 4 Para and 82 Abn Div are outside the SOF command structure. Its not just an issue of using parachutes but command and mission approaches.
Not really. There has been deployment of reserve commandos during winter to provide alleviation to SASR and 2 Cdo Regt but they don’t do the mission SASR do.
It doesn’t work this way. SOF would want their own people providing the cordons. This was why they set up 2 Cdo Regt in the first place.
I think you'll find that, for the most part, it is the SASR providing the cordon while the Cdos conduct the clearance, not the other way round.
Most military tacticians think it unlikely we will witness battalion sized operational drops in the near future. Company at most and invariably these would be preceded by either the pathfinders or SF to mark the DZ. If I was the CO of 3RAR I would be straining at the leash to get my unit better integrated with SASR/Cdo formations and push for a support role, even if it was limited to just the pathfinder platoon providing a localised safe harbour.
Why not just add another coy to 2 Cdo instead of using a coy from 3 RAR? It makes no sense.