Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

3 RAR already lost the ACT role at the end of last year. All that's happening now is a review to see whether the original decision is upheld or not. It's not a matter of saving money that lead to the decision, it's a matter of rotation. Only having one airborne battalion either means that we don't include it in the force generation cycle, ie it doesn't deploy, or we accept that fact that it isn't a full time capability and deploy 3 RAR anyway, making the whole endeavour a bit pointless.

The way to get 3 RAR on board, at least in the short term, is mention that if they want to keep the ACT role then they will have to give up their tour of Afghanistan next year. If 3 RAR go as planned, obviously there is no one back in Australia to undertake the ACT role. If we can give up the ACT role for 12 months, why not full time? The problem will keep coming up every time 3 RAR want to deploy. The only reason 3 RAR are deploying anyway is so that every battalion in the RAR gets an Afghan tour before it winds down - they are plenty of other battalions that could do the tour instead. I'd just ask the CO - para-wings or Afghanistan. You can't have both.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Why don't we do what the Canadians do and have it be converted to a light infantry battalion. Make it so all our light infantry battalions (1RAR, 2RAR and 3RAR) have 3 companies, with 2 being light and 1 being para. We will be able to have 200 troops give or take all the time ready to parachute into enemy territory providing one battalion is at home.

EDIT: Maybe turn 3rd Brigade into an Air Assault brigade and make the other 2 companies I mentioned that aren't para Air Assault. They would still be rapid deployment as the UK's 16th Air Assault Brigade is and would work great with the LHDs when they arrived. Think of an Island that one of the LHDs is attacking/offloading troops at, we could launch 2 Air Assault companies by heli with Chinook, NH90s and have the para company (providing it isnt dropping in) go by water.

 

[Raven22]

Er, 3 RAR already is light infantry and all the battalions in 3 Bde already are airmobile. No change there. The Canadian method of one jump company in each battalion is unworkable - they will tell you as much themselves. You can't maintain an ACT available with only having one company in a battalion para qualled - it takes the whole battalion to generate that capability in any meaningful capacity. Why spend all that money and effort for a capability that doesn't work?

 

[t68]

Although Australia has not had a combat related parachute drop, it should not mean we need to give up the means to do so. The only other alternative for a rapid insertion is by helicopter, although the ADF trains in helicopter insertion quite regularly it still is in the realms of small basic understanding from most battalions with too few assets and budget to train with.

Inserting by parachute or by helicopter both have their pro and cons and both still have the need for expensive aircraft to be available and in sufficient numbers to the task demanded, as well as other tasking needs of the ADF. Aircraft and troop numbers has large bearing on how Australia can train and deploy. The Army is feeling the strain in too few troop numbers and assets to sustain a contribution(s) overseas with our current operations, with the army’s ability to sustain the effort taking its toll on army’s ability to keep a broad capability mix current.

I do not believe that their will ever be mass airborne parachute drops the size of WWII, but that does not mean the capability should be lost altogether and be relied on by air assault (helicopters) in the past thirty years there have been a number of small combat parachute drops that have tactical implications in securing vital infrastructure till the main body arrives.

In 1983 Invasion of Grenada, the 75th Ranger Regiment made a combat jump on Point Salines International Airport.

In 1989 during the U.S invasion of Panama the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division. The 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment secured Omar Torrijos International Airport in Tocumen, Panama. The jump was made hours after the 75th Ranger Regiment conducted its two separate combat jumps. M551 Sheridan tanks were also dropped by air, the only time this capability was used in combat.

In 2001 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the 3rd Ranger Battalion and a small Command and Control Element from the Regimental Headquarters of the 75th Ranger Regiment jumped into Kandahar to secure an airfield.

In 2003 A co 3/75 Ranger Regiment conducted a combat jump into Northern Iraq, to seize a desert airfield.

In 2003 the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted a combat jump into Northern Iraq, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to seize an airfield and support Special Forces: Task Force Viking.

In 2009, Pakistan Army's 50th Airborne Division conducted a combat jump operations during Operation Black Thunderstorm and Operation Rah-e-Nijat against the Taliban Forces in North-West Pakistan, to seize control of strategic mountains areas to support Special forces and infantry troops

http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infocentre/journals/ADFHJ_oct06/ADFHealth_7_2_73.pdf

Airmobility 1961-1971


In conclusion whilst budget constraints will be the inevitable decider on which concept Australia will readily budget for there can be no overlooking the fact that parachute insertion still has a place in a modern defence force and that insertion by parachute has a speed and psychological effect on the enemy that a coordinated defence might not be mounted for some time.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why don't we do what the Canadians do

The Canadians have three infantry regiments and each of those forms multiple battalions and a parachute commando (reinforced company). They formed these commandos as part of their NCO training scheme. However in time the parachute mafia evolved the Canadian Airborne Regiment from these commandos with a distinct identity and sole focus on parachute operations. This was never what the Canadian Forces wanted – they had no operational role for airborne forces – but as with 3RAR parachute units tend to develop a momentum of their own. The Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded after a media circus generated by two paras killing a Somali. Because of this each commando returned to an infantry battalion from their regiment.

So from this a reasonable person should deduce that there was never any intent to form parachute companies within infantry battalions in the Canadian Forces. It’s something that happened to them via a range of events. Much like 3RAR and the airborne combat team. The parachute role was experimented with by the RAR (originally 6RAR) as part of the post VietNam War search for advanced training.

There has never been nor is there an Australian strategic requirement for conventional airborne forces. 3RAR however holds their parachute capability very dearly because it makes them different, earns them jump pay and is a very effective way to train infantry to a high physical and cohesion standard. What conceivable missions required of 3RAR’s ACT can be conducted by SOCOMD-A. It is not the role of the Army to indulge battalions in their cultural activities but rather to raise land forces for operational use. Goodbye airborne role.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In 1983 Invasion of Grenada, the 75th Ranger Regiment made a combat jump on Point Salines International Airport.

In 2001 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the 3rd Ranger Battalion and a small Command and Control Element from the Regimental Headquarters of the 75th Ranger Regiment jumped into Kandahar to secure an airfield.

In 2003 A co 3/75 Ranger Regiment conducted a combat jump into Northern Iraq, to seize a desert airfield.

These are all SOF jumps and in the Australian Army would be missions given to 2 Cdo Regt not 3RAR.

In 1989 during the U.S invasion of Panama the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division. The 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment secured Omar Torrijos International Airport in Tocumen, Panama.

This jump was not needed. The battalion could just as easily be flown into a nearby USAF airfield and secured their objectives by land mobility. They jumped because it was an airborne unit being deployed.

In 2003 the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted a combat jump into Northern Iraq, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to seize an airfield and support Special Forces: Task Force Viking.

This airborne assault required heavy airlift support to fly in mechanised units to make the bridge head feasible. The ADF lacks the capacity to match such airlift and would not be able to make a similar type of air assault.

In conclusion whilst budget constraints will be the inevitable decider on which concept Australia will readily budget for there can be no overlooking the fact that parachute insertion still has a place in a modern defence force and that insertion by parachute has a speed and psychological effect on the enemy that a coordinated defence might not be mounted for some time.

None of this is accurate. It is actually much quicker to assemble and deploy a helicopter mobile force than a parachute one. The only advantage of parachuting is it gives you a longer radius of action than helicopters. But this tends to be a problem rather than an asset. As in all those over extended airborne assaults that left the paras in a lot of trouble on the other end. In conventional forces parachutes are only an option if you can’t afford helicopters like in Rhodesia. Special forces is a different case but 3RAR isn’t SOF.

 

[riksavage]

Earning your maroon beret and wings is a right of passage for Airborne units, the argument being that if you can jump out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft with an 80lb pack strapped between your legs you can do just about anything without hesitation. Taking away the jump qualification is like being gelded for an Airborne soldier. Plus you will have to suffer relentless p*ss taking from your allies. I suspect 3RAR will fight tooth and nail to retain the parachute role.

In a worst case scenario they could form a mini-16 Air Assault closely aligned with the new Tiger's and what ever lift they have committed to role. Have one company dedicated as Pathfinders trained up in static-line and halo/haho and rotate the best and brightest young 3 RAR soldiers through, creating an elite, within the regiment. They could undetake training alongside the jump qualified Commado's and SASR personnel. The Pathfinders can mark and protect the DZ ready for the rest to arrive by helo escorted by the firepower of the Tigers. This could allow the Commando's to focus on the maritime role.

It would be a disaster to mimic the Canadian approach, which was basically a punishment posting to breakdown the aggressive Airborne mentality following the Somalia bollox burning incident. The Airborne ethos can't be maintained by a 'hat' CO with only one dedicated para trained company at his disposal.

 

[Raven22]

Earning your maroon beret and wings is a right of passage for Airborne units, the argument being that if you can jump out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft with an 80lb pack strapped between your legs you can do just about anything without hesitation. Taking away the jump qualification is like being gelded for an Airborne soldier. Plus you will have to suffer relentless p*ss taking from your allies. I suspect 3RAR will fight tooth and nail to retain the parachute role.

There's lots of ways to improve the morale, espirit de corp and physical toughness of soldiers - that doesn't mean we should spend tens of millions of dollars to pay for it. It must be remembered there is nothing particularly special or elite about 3 RAR - it is just another battalion in the RAR. There is no special selection course, no special qualification required - its just another posting for an infantryman. The only difference is that to get posted there a soldier must volunteer for para training, and when a soldier gets posted there they must complete the para course - which is a course that female air force doctors happily complete. While 3 RAR take great pride in their jump wings, at the end of the day they are no different to any other battalion, who readily seem to maintain their standards as infantrymen without para quals.

Now personally, I think there is merit in a course similar to the US Ranger Course, that provides extra leadership, physical toughness etc skills for NCOs and officers to take back to their units, and provide extra incentive for soldiers to excel. Jump training may be a legitimate component of such a course. However, that is far removed from keeping a battalion para qualled purely for pride's sake.

In a worst case scenario they could form a mini-16 Air Assault closely aligned with the new Tiger's and what ever lift they have committed to role. Have one company dedicated as Pathfinders trained up in static-line and halo/haho and rotate the best and brightest young 3 RAR soldiers through, creating an elite, within the regiment. They could undetake training alongside the jump qualified Commado's and SASR personnel. The Pathfinders can mark and protect the DZ ready for the rest to arrive by helo escorted by the firepower of the Tigers. This could allow the Commando's to focus on the maritime role.

No where in any of that is there anything even remotely sensible or relevant to the discussion.

 

[riksavage]

There's lots of ways to improve the morale, espirit de corp and physical toughness of soldiers - that doesn't mean we should spend tens of millions of dollars to pay for it. It must be remembered there is nothing particularly special or elite about 3 RAR - it is just another battalion in the RAR. There is no special selection course, no special qualification required - its just another posting for an infantryman. The only difference is that to get posted there a soldier must volunteer for para training, and when a soldier gets posted there they must complete the para course - which is a course that female air force doctors happily complete. While 3 RAR take great pride in their jump wings, at the end of the day they are no different to any other battalion, who readily seem to maintain their standards as infantrymen without para quals.

Now personally, I think there is merit in a course similar to the US Ranger Course, that provides extra leadership, physical toughness etc skills for NCOs and officers to take back to their units, and provide extra incentive for soldiers to excel. Jump training may be a legitimate component of such a course. However, that is far removed from keeping a battalion para qualled purely for pride's sake.



No where in any of that is there anything even remotely sensible or relevant to the discussion.

Having never trained with 3RAR I am unaware of their selection/training, I had incorrectly assumed they were modelled on a UK Para battalion undertaking a 'P' Company final selection course before being allowed to start the wings course, the passing of which gives them a sense of achievement above that of your standard line Regiment.

Secondly what's wrong with generating a Pathfinder Company out of the current 3RAR set-up? If you wish to go down the RANGER route then the airborne/air-mobile skills (parachuting, repelling, fast roping, helo insertion) are all part of the game because they are there to support Army tier one assets. If 3RAR's parachute function is to be downgraded, you could still maintain at least one Para capable Company (Pathfinders) should there be a need to jump-in and set-up an outer cordon to protect SASR during a raid (particularly if the Commando's are engaged elsewhere or out of theatre). This is exactly what a UK Para Company did last year in support of UK SF in A-Stan.

The reason limited Para drops are back in fashion in A-Stan is because the enemy has become too switched-on to the sound of helo's at night marking the beginning of a major assault. They failed to link the sound of fixed wing high in the sky to an airborne attack. Similar operations have been undertaken by the French and other non-US units.

 

[Volkodav]

Having never trained with 3RAR I am unaware of their selection/training, I had incorrectly assumed they were modelled on a UK Para battalion undertaking a 'P' Company final selection course before being allowed to start the wings course, the passing of which gives them a sense of achievement above that of your standard line Regiment.

Secondly what's wrong with generating a Pathfinder Company out of the current 3RAR set-up? If you wish to go down the RANGER route then the airborne/air-mobile skills (parachuting, repelling, fast roping, helo insertion) are all part of the game because they are there to support Army tier one assets. If 3RAR's parachute function is to be downgraded, you could still maintain at least one Para capable Company (Pathfinders) should there be a need to jump-in and set-up an outer cordon to protect SASR during a raid (particularly if the Commando's are engaged elsewhere or out of theatre). Which is exactly what a UK Para Company did last year in support of UK SF in A-Stan.

One of the issues 3 RAR have had, as explained to me by an ex member of the Btn who was disgusted at the attitude and behaviour of a number of young 3 RAR guys strutting around in their maroon berets at an AASAM during the early 90s, they believe they are elite when they in fact are not.

At the same meet there were a couple of Ghurkhas with the UK contingent, and a small group of SAS guys, all were friendly, helpful and not the slightest bit arrogant while the 3 RAR guys looked down their noses at all and sundry.

I sometimes wonder if some of the excesses and criminal behaviour exhibited within the defence forces relates to individuals who are not special believing that they are and as such above the law. i.e. junior ADFA Cadets and in the past 3 RAR (Para).

I do like the idea of the Ranger Course, P Company, the Commando Course, or similar as a form of leadership and extension training provided to junior leaders. I agree this is probably much better value for money than effectively weighing down a Btn trying to maintain a capability of questionable utility. Do this and parachute wings will mean something again.

We don't need a Pathfinder force as we have a SAS, a regular Commando and a reserve Commando Regiment that are para qualified. why hamstring a regular Btn supporting a capability we already have covered?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Secondly what's wrong with generating a Pathfinder Company out of the current 3RAR set-up?

A pathfinder capability is for recce and preparation of drop zones before the main force is parachuted in. If you are abolishing the main force what’s the point of having pathfinders!

Secondly If 3RAR's parachute function is to be downgraded, you could still maintain at least one Para capable Company (Pathfinders)

But that is the capability 3RAR has at the moment. A single para capable company (called the airborne combat team) out of a battalion. This is what is facing the chop at the moment and has been so for the past six or so years. That 3RAR has held out for so long is more of an indication of the civil service style management rather than leadership of the Army rather than any actual need of the role.

should there be a need to jump-in and set-up an outer cordon to protect SASR during a raid (particularly if the Commando's are engaged elsewhere or out of theatre). This is exactly what a UK Para Company did last year in support of UK SF in A-Stan.

We’ve gone over this many times before and the “commandos engaged elsewhere” line is a pretty poor attempt to gloss over it. Australia has its own SOCOMD-A construct and doesn’t need to carbon copy the UK’s just to provide you with something to talk about. Get over it.

should The reason limited Para drops are back in fashion in A-Stan is because the enemy has become too switched-on to the sound of helo's at night marking the beginning of a major assault. They failed to link the sound of fixed wing high in the sky to an airborne attack. Similar operations have been undertaken by the French and other non-US units.

The real reason is the noise approach relationship. The Taliban aren’t that stupid. But an air lifter’s speed and noise profile is such that there is a much lower time between audio detection and assault compared to the mainstay of air assault helicopters (but not all). The conventional side of the Australian Army isn’t fighting this kind of war in Afghanistan. So if a para deployment is needed by the SOF well they have that skill set anyway.

If we need parachute combat teams for a particular campaign we can raise them. We aren’t getting rid of the parachute training school. We don’t need them at the moment and don’t need a stand by force so why do we have the 3RAR ACT?

 

[RubiconNZ]

If we need parachute combat teams for a particular campaign we can raise them. We aren’t getting rid of the parachute training school. We don’t need them at the moment and don’t need a stand by force so why do we have the 3RAR ACT?

Thanks for this last part, it was going to be my question if they were maintaining the jump school. Who other than the 3rd make use of the Jump school? If it is currently based at HMAS Albatross do all relevant ADF personnel undergo training their? Pilots, Aircrew, Commando's etc?

 

[Volkodav]

Bought the latest copy of the Australian Infantry Magazine the other day and there were a couple of interesting mentions I hadn't come across / been aware of previously as well as an interesting recommendation.

The AGL was intended as a Platoon support weapon but was too heavy.

The HK 417 is being adopted as an interim DM / sniper weapon.

6 RAR has adopted 8 man sections.

6 RAR’s PMV’s are deployed as A echelon detachments at company level.

Recommendation to adopt a 60mm light mortar at platoon level.

The assignment of the Bushmasters is the most interesting as it in essence provides an APC (yes I know they are PMVs not APCs) Troop directly supporting a light infantry company. This is particularly interesting as they are close enough to the troops they support to develop an effective relationship while concentrated enough to function independently if required while at the same time allowing the rifle company to maintain a very high level of infantry skills without becoming over reliant in their armour. I wonder if it would work in a Mech Inf Btn?

 

[Raven22]

To add to the debate, it's worth remembering that SOCOMD has specifically planned to take on the airborne POE seizure role. It's not like they are being lumped with an extra job, the master plan for SOCOMD has this as one of its specified tasks.

Thanks for this last part, it was going to be my question if they were maintaining the jump school. Who other than the 3rd make use of the Jump school? If it is currently based at HMAS Albatross do all relevant ADF personnel undergo training their? Pilots, Aircrew, Commando's etc?

If 3 RAR lose their wings, PTS will become part of SOCOMD, as the only two 'airborne' units will be the SASR and 2 Cdo.

The HK 417 is being adopted as an interim DM / sniper weapon.

Technically, the HK-417 isn't being bought as a marksman rifle, but to fulfill a requirement for a '7.62mm Assault Rifle' for the SASR. Since there is a requirement for a similar rifle for the conventional forces in Afghanistan, more weapons are being bought for the MTF (paid for by the force protection review). Technically there are no 'designated marksmen' in Afghanistan, and the weapon will be issued to sections to give them a weapon capable of fire past 600m. The SR-25 has being fulfilling this role, but it doesn't have a good enough rate of fire.

There is still the requirement for a 7.62mm rifle for the designated marksman in the modernised infantry battalion, which technically hasn't been decided yet. If the HK-417 is successful in Afghanistan, it will almost certainly be picked to fulfill the requirement though. I've been reliably informed that H&K offered the current weapons very cheap to make a follow on order more attractive.

The assignment of the Bushmasters is the most interesting as it in essence provides an APC (yes I know they are PMVs not APCs) Troop directly supporting a light infantry company. This is particularly interesting as they are close enough to the troops they support to develop an effective relationship while concentrated enough to function independently if required while at the same time allowing the rifle company to maintain a very high level of infantry skills without becoming over reliant in their armour. I wonder if it would work in a Mech Inf Btn?

That's the way it has always been done, be it motorised or mechanised units. The vehicles are allocated to the mechanised/motorised cell at company level under the command of the mech/mot SGT, to enable a centralised RTS function. When they go bush however, each section still gets allocated their own vehicle. The vehicles won't do independent tasks except for very simple zulu musters etc. They don't have the command and control (or the training) to do real independent tasks.

 

[Volkodav]

That's the way it has always been done, be it motorised or mechanised units. The vehicles are allocated to the mechanised/motorised cell at company level under the command of the mech/mot SGT, to enable a centralised RTS function. When they go bush however, each section still gets allocated their own vehicle. The vehicles won't do independent tasks except for very simple zulu musters etc. They don't have the command and control (or the training) to do real independent tasks.

Very interesting, I was CAV (ARES) so know how an APC Trp was set up but had no idea how the RAR did things. I had always been under the impression that the vehicles were allocated per section with the Seco or 2IC being the Crew Commander and dismounting with the section. Glad to hear this was not the case.

I suppose the question is why not have a CAV Troop with the appropriate command, control and training embedded inplace of the Mech/motorised cell? There are RAEME detatchments in most units, why not RAAC?

 

[winnyfield]

I've been reliably informed that H&K offered the current weapons very cheap to make a follow on order more attractive.

.

I believe the HK417 uses proprietary magazines. Razor blades.

 

[Raven22]

I believe the HK417 uses proprietary magazines. Razor blades.

So does the F88. It's not a warstopper.

I do like the idea of the Ranger Course, P Company, the Commando Course, or similar as a form of leadership and extension training provided to junior leaders. I agree this is probably much better value for money than effectively weighing down a Btn trying to maintain a capability of questionable utility. Do this and parachute wings will mean something again.

To expand on my point, I think there is great benefit in developing a course similar to the Ranger Course in the US Army. Most graduates of Ranger School don't go on to join a Ranger unit, they go back to their original unit with the extra skills, leadership, confidence etc to improve those units. It is also an excellent motivator for soldiers.

I would see a similar Australian course aimed at junior leaders (LCPLs, CPLs and LTs mainly) from across all deployable units in the army. You might have, say, a dozen soldiers from an infantry unit do the course each year, half a dozen from a CSS unit or whatever. There'd be a minimum fitness standard, and each unit would only send their best soldiers to attend (ie, a reward to high achievers, beyond simply getting a good PAR).

The course would largely consist of a smash together of a number of existing courses, put in the framework of a demanding environment similar to a special forces reinforcement cycle. You could include elements of the urban ops instructor course, combat fitness leader course, military self defence course, para course, combat first aider course, basic tracker course, dismounted ambush course, Cat C range qual course, marksmanship instructor course, a small arms package to aim at achieving LF18, a TEWT package to improve planning/orders etc etc. Whatever combination of competencies you desire, wrapped in the framework of lots of PT, lots of time in the bush, lots of pressure and responsibility. Call it 10 weeks or so. At the end you get a fancy badge to stick on your uniform, and get to strut around with the confidence that comes with knowing you are good at your job.

Such a course would bring back fit, qualled up junior leaders to their unit, better at their own jobs, but more importantly with the skills to improve the training of the other soldiers in the unit. Give it a few years, and allow the soldiers/officers to be promoted etc, and each unit might have ~10% of their members qualled with a 'Ranger Tab'.

Of course, such a course would be ridiculously expensive, and very, very hard to scrape together qualified instructors for, but I think it has merit. I'd certainly want to do the course.

 

[Volkodav]

To expand on my point, I think there is great benefit in developing a course similar to the Ranger Course in the US Army. Most graduates of Ranger School don't go on to join a Ranger unit, they go back to their original unit with the extra skills, leadership, confidence etc to improve those units. It is also an excellent motivator for soldiers.

I would see a similar Australian course aimed at junior leaders (LCPLs, CPLs and LTs mainly) from across all deployable units in the army. You might have, say, a dozen soldiers from an infantry unit do the course each year, half a dozen from a CSS unit or whatever. There'd be a minimum fitness standard, and each unit would only send their best soldiers to attend (ie, a reward to high achievers, beyond simply getting a good PAR).

The course would largely consist of a smash together of a number of existing courses, put in the framework of a demanding environment similar to a special forces reinforcement cycle. You could include elements of the urban ops instructor course, combat fitness leader course, military self defence course, para course, combat first aider course, basic tracker course, dismounted ambush course, Cat C range qual course, marksmanship instructor course, a small arms package to aim at achieving LF18, a TEWT package to improve planning/orders etc etc. Whatever combination of competencies you desire, wrapped in the framework of lots of PT, lots of time in the bush, lots of pressure and responsibility. Call it 10 weeks or so. At the end you get a fancy badge to stick on your uniform, and get to strut around with the confidence that comes with knowing you are good at your job.

Such a course would bring back fit, qualled up junior leaders to their unit, better at their own jobs, but more importantly with the skills to improve the training of the other soldiers in the unit. Give it a few years, and allow the soldiers/officers to be promoted etc, and each unit might have ~10% of their members qualled with a 'Ranger Tab'.

Of course, such a course would be ridiculously expensive, and very, very hard to scrape together qualified instructors for, but I think it has merit. I'd certainly want to do the course.

Definitely sounds like a good idea.

Possibility some of the instructors could be drawn from SAS and Commando veterans to provide invaluable input to the ARA as a whole.

We had a former RSM of the SAS as a captain and instructor at my old Uni Regiment. He had three tours on Vietnam under his belt, first as N° 1 Scout, second as Platoon Sergeant and later Platoon leader (after his Lt was medivaced home) and a final tour with the SAS. Our Cadre Staff were good but this guy left them for dead, the knowledge and skills he was able to pass on were without peer.

Right now we have more people like that than at anytime since Vietnam, using them to instruct an “ARA Ranger Course”, would feed a lot of knowledge and skill back into the ARA and help better craft our future leadership.

 

[SASWanabe]

does anyone know if there is has been any talk about aquiring a light helicopter so the SF arnt restricted to something as big, bulky and frankly useless as the MRH-90?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Bought the latest copy of the Australian Infantry Magazine the other day and there were a couple of interesting mentions I hadn't come across / been aware of previously as well as an interesting recommendation.

The AGL was intended as a Platoon support weapon but was too heavy.

The HK 417 is being adopted as an interim DM / sniper weapon.

6 RAR has adopted 8 man sections.

6 RAR’s PMV’s are deployed as A echelon detachments at company level.

Recommendation to adopt a 60mm light mortar at platoon level.

The assignment of the Bushmasters is the most interesting as it in essence provides an APC (yes I know they are PMVs not APCs) Troop directly supporting a light infantry company. This is particularly interesting as they are close enough to the troops they support to develop an effective relationship while concentrated enough to function independently if required while at the same time allowing the rifle company to maintain a very high level of infantry skills without becoming over reliant in their armour. I wonder if it would work in a Mech Inf Btn?

Rainf Magazine has been calling for the adoption of a 60mm mortar for several years now.

I hope they get it. Perhaps it may allow the Mortar platoons to expand to a 120mm mortar, which I believe should increasingly be the main mortar capability solution Australia should be pursuing, now that we are getting rid of the 105mm guns and most of our Artillery capability (numbers wise)...