Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

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?

There is no plan for it. Army and Navy are getting a Joint training helicopter, but nothing further has yet been decided on. There has been talk ever since the Iroquois was retired and Kiowa replaced with the Tiger, of raising a Light Utility Helicopter capability for Army leveraged off the training helicopter selected for the Joint training Helo project, but so far it has come to nothing.

No capability requirement (publicly announced anyway), no funding and no "high level" support...

 

[riksavage]

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



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.

Considering the small size of the Aus military (particularly infantry and supporting arms) coupled with the fact you already have selection/training for SASR/Commando; setting up yet another school for Rangers might prove expensive and sap SF qualified instructors needed elsewhere.

Considering the impending leap in amphibious and power projection capabilities why not instead leverage off existing Commando facilities/instructors and set-up and all-arms Commando course (not just infantry).

This would be a tough, no compromise physical and mental testing process with a clear pass/fail rate, which wold be focused around core skills needed for boat/helicopter operations at sea. Successful candidates who pass the physical, mental and leadership aptitude tests (phase one) could then go on to receive additional role specific training as part of phase two (becoming fast roping/repelling/climbing instructors for example), which they could take back to their battalions. They could then wear a distinctive patch (Commando Dagger or Ranger style flash) and form a specialist cadre within each battalion who would then act as the centre of excellence if and when the battalion is assigned to one of the Canberra's. Making it an all-ams course means gunners and logisticians could also gain the qualification, but at the end of phase one, their phase two training would be specific to role.

It would be a win, win solution. CO's wouldn't lose their best and brightest indefinitely and they would inherit specialist troops with the added kudos of completing an arduous service wide course.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Considering the small size of the Aus military (particularly infantry and supporting arms) coupled with the fact you already have selection/training for SASR/Commando; setting up yet another school for Rangers might prove expensive and sap SF qualified instructors needed elsewhere.

It’s not that small. Besides the ‘advanced combat’ school proposed by Raven does not mandate SOF instructors. There used to be something similar to this in the Jungle Training Centre at Canungra. It put visiting infantry battalions through an intense course to prepare them for overseas service. With the new force generation cycle perhaps JTC could be revamped as an individual training centre rather than collective. This could be the Ranger type course with an established Australian Army historical lineage. It could also provide the Army with ane motional link back to the old jungle fighting days of WWII and VietNam. Further the close combat skills needed for jungle warfare are very similar to those needed for urban warfare and this course could use the jungle training to step into an intensive urban training. Wouldn’t be too hard to come up with a badge. From memory the JTC Canungra unit badge was pretty cool with a hundred eyes monster on it.

Considering the impending leap in amphibious and power projection capabilities why not instead leverage off existing Commando facilities/instructors and set-up and all-arms Commando course (not just infantry).

Shame the Australian Army commandos are not the Royal Marine Commandos and don’t have mastery of amphibious warfare. Our commandoes have a lot of water skills but this is to do with small unit raids. Learning to ride in a RHIB or swim while wearing a uniform is not really going to help the amphibious ready group who might just notice the ocean as they zoom by in a helicopter. Besides the SOF kind of like being ‘special’ and wouldn’t really appreciate having the rest of the Army gate crash their courses.

Thanks to Google Images here is the old unit crest:

http://www.addinall.net/hydra.jpg

That would look pretty cool crowding amongst the AIRN, ASMs and other pointless attaboys on the uniform.

 

[riksavage]

It’s not that small. Besides the ‘advanced combat’ school proposed by Raven does not mandate SOF instructors. There used to be something similar to this in the Jungle Training Centre at Canungra. It put visiting infantry battalions through an intense course to prepare them for overseas service. With the new force generation cycle perhaps JTC could be revamped as an individual training centre rather than collective. This could be the Ranger type course with an established Australian Army historical lineage. It could also provide the Army with ane motional link back to the old jungle fighting days of WWII and VietNam. Further the close combat skills needed for jungle warfare are very similar to those needed for urban warfare and this course could use the jungle training to step into an intensive urban training. Wouldn’t be too hard to come up with a badge. From memory the JTC Canungra unit badge was pretty cool with a hundred eyes monster on it.



Shame the Australian Army commandos are not the Royal Marine Commandos and don’t have mastery of amphibious warfare. Our commandoes have a lot of water skills but this is to do with small unit raids. Learning to ride in a RHIB or swim while wearing a uniform is not really going to help the amphibious ready group who might just notice the ocean as they zoom by in a helicopter. Besides the SOF kind of like being ‘special’ and wouldn’t really appreciate having the rest of the Army gate crash their courses.

Thanks to Google Images here is the old unit crest:

http://www.addinall.net/hydra.jpg

That would look pretty cool crowding amongst the AIRN, ASMs and other pointless attaboys on the uniform.

You have missed the point completely. My reference to the all-arms Commando course is about providing additional physical / mental tests (comparable with Ranger) with a strong emphasis on the utilisation of new amphibious assets, whether that means deploying from an LC or via helicopter insertion. Swimming ashore Grytviken style, mastering a klepper or undertaking SCIII's was never my intent.

Include a Jungle phase if you like, but I would also include other niche courses - repelling/fast roping instructors, basic climbing skills, FAC. We are talking small numbers of soldiers who could also form the backbone of the Battalions recce troop/section (which often contains the brightest and best young thrusters).

Because Aus does not have a dedicated RM/USMC, having respected and Commando 'badged' core group within each battalion who could act as amphib centres of excellence for when any of the RAR's are required to embark aboard a Canberra would be a bonus and shorten the learning curve. One of their roles would be to assist the CO maximise any opportunities afforded to him whilst embarked. A badged Lt. or Sgt could also act as the RAN liaison officer and along with the rest of the Battalion command element assist in pre-planning any deployment.

The reference to the Commando Dagger was simply a historical one and would mark out those troops who had completed the course and who have the added benefit of being familiar/proficient in operating from an amphib vessel, they would not usurp the role carried out by the existing Commando units.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You have missed the point completely. My reference to the all-arms Commando course is about providing additional physical / mental tests (comparable with Ranger) with a strong emphasis on the utilisation of new amphibious assets, whether that means deploying from an LC or via helicopter insertion. Swimming ashore Grytviken style, mastering a klepper or undertaking SCIII's was never my intent.

I understood that this is what you meant but clearly you don’t understand that Australia already has Commandos. I assumed you must have known this, but clearly you don’t, and referenced the water training that this extant Commando force conducts.

You have invented an entirely new form of Commando which I’m sure the current mob won’t be very happy about. You can’t go and make a new course and then call it the Commando course because one of the same name with a very different purpose already exists. That would be just as misguided as calling it the Special Air Service course or the Fighter Combat Instructor course.

You are constantly polluting this thread with the assumption that the Australian Army is just a small version of the British Army. We have Commandos and they are very different to the Commandos in the British Forces.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Include a Jungle phase if you like, but I would also include other niche courses - repelling/fast roping instructors, basic climbing skills, FAC. We are talking small numbers of soldiers who could also form the backbone of the Battalions recce troop/section (which often contains the brightest and best young thrusters).

Because Aus does not have a dedicated RM/USMC, having respected and Commando 'badged' core group within each battalion who could act as amphib centres of excellence for when any of the RAR's are required to embark aboard a Canberra would be a bonus and shorten the learning curve. One of their roles would be to assist the CO maximise any opportunities afforded to him whilst embarked. A badged Lt. or Sgt could also act as the RAN liaison officer and along with the rest of the Battalion command element assist in pre-planning any deployment.

Apart from the Commando naming silliness I think you are missing the point of Raven’s suggestion. This Rangeresque ‘advanced training’ course is not about qualification for capability like amphibious warfare but about providing a high achievement objective. You can’t certify a battalion for amphibious warfare by only having some of the unit trained in this role. It would be like sprinkling pathfinders throughout a leg infantry battalion and expecting it to launch airborne assaults. Besides amphibious skills are very minimal for the leg infantry. The amphibious skillsets are really needed in staff and the CS/CSS enablers. Things like "RAN Liasion Officers" are just made up and bear no resemblance to the ADF's amphibious warfare concept.

Learning rock climbing is not necessarily going to develop the advanced close combat ethos Raven is talking about. What is needed is physical/mental stress and lots of weapon handling/military skills opportunities. Sure there are many ways to achieve this including airborne assault and coastline raiding training. And these would be good selections for other armies. But in Australia neither have had much of a historical importance. Jungle warfare however has and facilities, course design and instructor skills are available to leverage this. A legacy that will soon be lost to the Army because of their abandonment for collective training because of the MRE construct for operational deployment.

 

[Raven22]

riksavage, I think you misunderstand what sort of course I am suggesting. The course I describe has nothing to do with special forces. It has nothing to do with introducing a new capability to army. It is not about improving our amphibious capabilities or airborne capabilities. It is an individual course aimed at improving the core and advanced combat skill of selected junior leaders so they can go back to their units and improve the training standard. The only reason I called it a 'Ranger' course is because the outcome of the course is similar. Obviously in Australia we would namely it something more suitable to our own heritage.

There would be no need for special forces instructors for the course. All the competencies I outlined already exist and can easily be taught by instructors in the conventional army. However, a couple of special forces instructors might be good, not only to improve the training standard for some of the competencies, but to allow some recruiting of high flying soldiers for SOCOMD.

As Abe suggested, the obvious place to base such a course would be the jungle. There is no more challenging or demanding operating environment than the jungle. Taking real world considerations on board, the best place to base the course would probably be Townsville to leverage off existing resources. Most of the course can use the training facilities at Lavarack, Mt Stuart and High Range, with ready access to the helicopters of 5 Avn, with the jungle phase being conducted at Tully. If you don't know where these places are then you are probably not well placed to comment.

As I said, the biggest problem, besides inertia, to implementing such a course would be cost. The cost of flying, housing, and feeding a few hundred soldiers a year, paying for the ammunition and flying hours, paying for the upgrades to facilities would be very hard to justify in todays SRP environment. Moreover, getting enough qualified instructors in one place to conduct the course would be very hard. The sort of instructors you would need on the course - fit, motivated, highly qualified and experienced NCOs - are exactly the resource Army is short of the most.

The main idea of such a course is to remind everybody - the soldiers most of all - that the Army's mission is to win the land battle. We get far to lost in bureaucratic bullshit in our army, and have not just let the warrior ethos fall by the wayside - it has been actively sabotaged by succeeding waves of senior leaders (both uniformed and civil) who want to the turn the Army into another public service. Success is measured by the number of unacceptable behavior complaints, not by the readiness of our combat forces to blow shit up.

As an example, one thing I hate in this Army is the fact that the military self defence course is so named. Self-defence? Who cares about self-defence? We are not in the business of defending ourselves, we are in the business of defending others by being so good at killing people they don't bother to try us. How about calling it the military un-armed combat course instead - at least that brings the image of bayonet wielding soldiers carving through the advancing hordes, and not of an overweight middle aged woman learning how to swing her handbag. Of course we can't call it that, because that might remind people the purpose of soldiers. It might seem a roundabout way of thinking, but there it is.

 

[riksavage]

riksavage, I think you misunderstand what sort of course I am suggesting. The course I describe has nothing to do with special forces. It has nothing to do with introducing a new capability to army. It is not about improving our amphibious capabilities or airborne capabilities. It is an individual course aimed at improving the core and advanced combat skill of selected junior leaders so they can go back to their units and improve the training standard. The only reason I called it a 'Ranger' course is because the outcome of the course is similar. Obviously in Australia we would namely it something more suitable to our own heritage.

There would be no need for special forces instructors for the course. All the competencies I outlined already exist and can easily be taught by instructors in the conventional army. However, a couple of special forces instructors might be good, not only to improve the training standard for some of the competencies, but to allow some recruiting of high flying soldiers for SOCOMD.

As Abe suggested, the obvious place to base such a course would be the jungle. There is no more challenging or demanding operating environment than the jungle. Taking real world considerations on board, the best place to base the course would probably be Townsville to leverage off existing resources. Most of the course can use the training facilities at Lavarack, Mt Stuart and High Range, with ready access to the helicopters of 5 Avn, with the jungle phase being conducted at Tully. If you don't know where these places are then you are probably not well placed to comment.

As I said, the biggest problem, besides inertia, to implementing such a course would be cost. The cost of flying, housing, and feeding a few hundred soldiers a year, paying for the ammunition and flying hours, paying for the upgrades to facilities would be very hard to justify in todays SRP environment. Moreover, getting enough qualified instructors in one place to conduct the course would be very hard. The sort of instructors you would need on the course - fit, motivated, highly qualified and experienced NCOs - are exactly the resource Army is short of the most.

The main idea of such a course is to remind everybody - the soldiers most of all - that the Army's mission is to win the land battle. We get far to lost in bureaucratic bullshit in our army, and have not just let the warrior ethos fall by the wayside - it has been actively sabotaged by succeeding waves of senior leaders (both uniformed and civil) who want to the turn the Army into another public service. Success is measured by the number of unacceptable behavior complaints, not by the readiness of our combat forces to blow shit up.

As an example, one thing I hate in this Army is the fact that the military self defence course is so named. Self-defence? Who cares about self-defence? We are not in the business of defending ourselves, we are in the business of defending others by being so good at killing people they don't bother to try us. How about calling it the military un-armed combat course instead - at least that brings the image of bayonet wielding soldiers carving through the advancing hordes, and not of an overweight middle aged woman learning how to swing her handbag. Of course we can't call it that, because that might remind people the purpose of soldiers. It might seem a roundabout way of thinking, but there it is.

Raven, I totally agree with what you are saying, I come from a disciplined service background and spent many years writing doctrine and running selection and training courses, Deciding what to include (advanced weapons, unarmed combat, offensive explosives, maritime, green or black centric skills) above and beyond the core basics is a difficult balance, you can't expect your boys to master all disciplines, hence many units have specialised cadres.

I'm actually not a fan of self-defence/unarmed combat unless you are prepared to dedicate a huge amount of time (which in my opinion would be better spent on the range), and it achieves little unless relentlessly drilled into muscle memory accept to teach troops about enduring pain at the hands of another.

I agree a Ranger style course would be great to develop junior leaders, most guys who go through the US programme are pretty young and it's a useful stepping stone before one applies to join a tier one unit. With a dramatic leap in Australian's maritime lift, which for the first time (in a long time) will allow deployed assets to attempt a coordinated large scale amphibious and helicopter assault from the sea, it would be useful to have a 'cadre' of soldiers in each battalion who understand the complexity of such operations and are familiar with shipboard SOP's at the section level.

Why not then use a proposed Ranger style course and apart from teaching the core skills you mention, build it around maximising the new Canberra's. After all a key part of the US Ranger programme is preparing for para/airborne operations in support of SF. If Aus ditches regular army parachuting why not then orientate an Aussified Ranger course towards LC/helicopter assault? This is not about creating yet another SF unit, but improving leadership, providing a sense of achievement and at the same time creating a centre of excellence focused around ship-based operations. RAR battalions will find themselves assigned to the LHD's at some point, so having known faces in each battalion who understand the drills, are proven junior leaders and are held in high regard will make a huge difference when trying to load and coordinate 600 warm bodies at night in choppy waters aboard LC's and helo's.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With a dramatic leap in Australian's maritime lift, which for the first time (in a long time) will allow deployed assets to attempt a coordinated large scale amphibious and helicopter assault from the sea, it would be useful to have a 'cadre' of soldiers in each battalion who understand the complexity of such operations and are familiar with shipboard SOP's at the section level.

Are you just making this stuff up or are you really this ignorant of the Australian Army? The ADF has had a multi ship amphibious assault capability for over a decade. The LHDs are nothing new. They are better ships than the LPAs but the later could still launch LCMs and company level air assaults.

Many infantry battalions have already experienced landing craft life and ship to objective manoeuvre. Further the Army has plans to cycle in amphibious training for an entire battalion into the Army’s force generation cycle. That way much like a Marine MEU there will always be an on hand fully LHD and STOM qualified battalion ready for amphibious deployment.

You’re not contributing much but rather displaying a lot of ignorance.

 

[old faithful]

My 2 bob,s.
If i go away, and put myself through a very tough and demanding course, I then want to continue developing my skills and get posted to another unit.
Specialist courses achive a lot of these skills. Put more soldiers on recon courses, run in house/brigade. When you have a bn with 70-100 cross trained soldiers,recon,assault pioneers and reggie sig/medic, you then have a hell of a lot of very well trained soldiers indeed. These blokes are surplus to support coy blokes.

As for the 3RAR debate re-arrogance/elitist. Well "only a surfer knows the feeling" pretty much covers it.
Its just the vibe of the thing.....
Its family and loyalty not found in the other Bns in the regt.
The men from 3 are mentally tougher in general to the other bns in the reg. this comes from doing multiple forced marches over very long distances at a pretty quick pace. it also involved a task at the end of the walk, not just clean weopons and hand in stores,i recall an 86 klicka, followed by a live fire company attack. if you havnt served in 3, I dont expect you to understand.

 

[riksavage]

Are you just making this stuff up or are you really this ignorant of the Australian Army? The ADF has had a multi ship amphibious assault capability for over a decade. The LHDs are nothing new. They are better ships than the LPAs but the later could still launch LCMs and company level air assaults.

Many infantry battalions have already experienced landing craft life and ship to objective manoeuvre. Further the Army has plans to cycle in amphibious training for an entire battalion into the Army’s force generation cycle. That way much like a Marine MEU there will always be an on hand fully LHD and STOM qualified battalion ready for amphibious deployment.

You’re not contributing much but rather displaying a lot of ignorance.

Calm down.

You can't compare what you have today (those assets that actually ever leave harbour) with what you are about to get with the Canberra's, the leap in capability is huge, so is the learning curve. People on this site with first hand experience have openly commented about the state of the existing amphib fleet and lack of deployability.

I'm racking my brain as to when was the last time the Australian military actually conducted an independent all-arms helo/amphibious exercise where the embarked assets spent time at sea for an extended period - East Timor? I'm not talking about a littoral localised deployment, but one where RAN/Army assets have had to work cheek and jowl for extended periods at sea executing the type of amphib operations typically carried out by nations with dedicated Marine/Naval infantry - Cougar 11 for example? The type of deployment the Canberra's will allow Australia to undertake for the first time in a generation.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Calm down.

What could possibly make you think I’m not completely calm? I’m demolishing your posts but that hardly takes a sweat to achieve.

You can't compare what you have today (those assets that actually ever leave harbour) with what you are about to get with the Canberra's, the leap in capability is huge, so is the learning curve. People on this site with first hand experience have openly commented about the state of the existing amphib fleet and lack of deployability.

Two issues here that have nothing to do with the one at hand. Sure the LHDs are bigger and better than the LPA but that doesn’t mean they are a new capability. Only a fool would think that if someone was driving a compact car and then got a medium size this would mean they never had a car before. Which is effectively what you are saying. As to the maintenance standard this is something brought about via hard work. Just because the ships are broke down now doesn’t mean they have been so every day for the past 10+ years and not put to work.

I'm racking my brain as to when was the last time the Australian military actually conducted an independent all-arms helo/amphibious exercise where the embarked assets spent time at sea for an extended period - East Timor? I'm not talking about a littoral localised deployment, but one where RAN/Army assets have had to work cheek and jowl for extended periods at sea executing the type of amphib operations typically caried out by nations with dedicated Marine/Naval infantry? The type of deployment the Canberra's will allow Australia to undertake for the first time in a generation.

Just because you are ignorant of the exercises and deployments of the LPAs doesn’t mean they haven’t happened. To help you wrack your brain – a task clearly needing copious assistance – you can search for topics associated with Operations/Exercises Falconer, Talisman Sabre, Sumatra Assist, Astute and Quickstep for starters.

As to East Timor that would hardly qualify as an amphibious deployment. We used ferries to motor troops from port to port. And for your last statement about a generation what on earth does this mean? Before the LPAs the last time Australia had deployed amphibious forces was the Invasion of Borneo in 1945. Most people would say that was two generations (or even three).

 

[riksavage]

What could possibly make you think I’m not completely calm? I’d demolishing your posts but that hardly takes a sweat to achieve.



Two issues here that have nothing to do with the one at hand. Sure the LHDs are bigger and better than the LPA but that doesn’t mean they are a new capability. Only a fool would think that if someone was driving a compact car and then got a medium size this would mean they never had a car before. Which is effectively what you are saying. As to the maintenance standard this is something brought about via hard work. Just because the ships are broke down now doesn’t mean they have been so every day for the past 10+ years and not put to work.



Just because you are ignorant of the exercises and deployments of the LPAs doesn’t mean they haven’t happened. To help you wrack your brain – a task clearly needing copious assistance – you can search for topics associated with Operations/Exercises Falconer, Talisman Sabre, Sumatra Assist, Astute and Quickstep for starters.

As to East Timor that would hardly qualify as an amphibious deployment. We used ferries to motor troops from port to port. And for your last statement about a generation what on earth does this mean? Before the LPAs the last time Australia had deployed amphibious forces was the Invasion of Borneo in 1945. Most people would say that was two generations (or even three).

You can by a very unpleasant individual at times.

I'm fully aware of the operations you mentioned (listed by date below), however Talisman Sabre was in 2007, four years ago, anything more recent? A four year gap will degrade skills and many of those involved will have been promoted or moved out of role? Plus most of the exercises/deployments mentioned below didn't test/practice the type of combined all-arms operation envisaged for the future Canberra Class where you could end up with a battalion of embarked assets deploying by both LC and Helicopter simultaneously from the same vessel.

Talisman Sabre - 2007
Operation Astute - 2006
Operation Quickstep 2006
Sumatra Assist - 2005
Operations/Exercises Falconer - 2003

Hopefully when the BAY arrives the tempo of operations will increase once more and we will see annual deployments again to allow for a ramping-up of skills ready for the first Canberra. Whilst two very different roled vessel's, you can at least practice joint service embarkation/debarkation drills day/night under realistic conditions.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm fully aware of the operations you mentioned (listed by date below), however Talisman Sabre was in 2007, four years ago, anything more recent?

Actually Exercise Talisman Sabre happens every two years. I guess you didn't find that out in your quick Google search. As for the substance of the latest version of your point of course ADF amphibious forces sustain training between exercises and operations. They don’t go stale. I don't see how your proposal for sea side adventure training course would somehow effect this cycle.

Is this more unpleasantness for you? It’s actually not me that is being unpleasant it is you with your knowledge poor, shallow opinions and constant need to share them and defend them. I’m just the guy holding up the mirror and letting you see how ridiculous you look to anyone with an informed opinion about the ADF.

 

[Bonza]

Could everyone give the personal comments a rest please...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm fully aware of the operations you mentioned (listed by date below), however Talisman Sabre was in 2007, four years ago, anything more recent?

its every 2 years. its actually a full purple exercise and includes cyber elements now.

its a critical event for USMC as well due to it being purple and not run out of CONUS so provides them with different experiences.

.

 

[Raven22]

What riksavage seems to be constantly missing, is that for the combat force - ie the people that would be conducting any 'Ranger' course - amphib isn't actually all that hard. You spend two days sea prepping your equipment, you rock up to the wharf and get stuffed around for a couple of hours until you work out where you are supposed to go. You get on the ship, get stuffed around for a few more hours until some bearded bloke shows you where you put your stuff and where you are supposed to sleep. You spend a couple of days on the ship being bored, getting yelled at by bearded blokes every time you do something because apparently it will make the ship explode or something. You finally get orders, get on a boat/helicopter and get taken to shore, and go off to fight a war. That's about it.

The hard part of amphib is the staff work that goes into it, and the enablers that are the interface between ship and shore. That's where the requirement for specialised training resides, and is why permanant organisations that conduct this aspect either already exist or are being stood up. The only real difference that the arrival of the LHDs will see is an increase in size. For the combat units, a couple of weeks training a year provides enough capability for any contingency operation. It doesn't require a number of soldiers in the unit to have attended an amphibious commando ninja course or something.

Ask the rifle companies that will embark on US amphibs this year for Talisman Sabre (just so you know riksavage, its in July) exactly how much training they need for the job.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Calm down.

You can't compare what you have today (those assets that actually ever leave harbour) with what you are about to get with the Canberra's, the leap in capability is huge, so is the learning curve. People on this site with first hand experience have openly commented about the state of the existing amphib fleet and lack of deployability.

I'm racking my brain as to when was the last time the Australian military actually conducted an independent all-arms helo/amphibious exercise where the embarked assets spent time at sea for an extended period - East Timor? I'm not talking about a littoral localised deployment, but one where RAN/Army assets have had to work cheek and jowl for extended periods at sea executing the type of amphib operations typically carried out by nations with dedicated Marine/Naval infantry - Cougar 11 for example? The type of deployment the Canberra's will allow Australia to undertake for the first time in a generation.

Exercise Sea Lion. Our major Joint amphibious warfare training exercise, often conducted in conjunction with RAAF and the Kiwis.

2010.

Image Galleries 2010 - Department of Defence

2009

RNZN - Media Releases

2008.

Image Galleries 2008 - Department of Defence

2007.

Image Galleries 2007 - Department of Defence

We do it every single year...

Plus we do amphib training at RIMPAC and other exercises like Talisman Sabre as the others have already suggested...

Before telling all and sundry what we should and shouldn't be doing, perhaps some research into the subject would be in order?

 

[StevoJH]

I hope Operation/Exercise Sea Lion is not simulating an amphibious invasion of the United Kingdom. We all know how that would have ended.:crazy

How old are those LARC-V's? Surely there is something a little newer available? LCM8's arent exactly modern either. And are those Soldiers in the photos fully kitted out? I don't see kevlar.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How old are those LARC-V's? Surely there is something a little newer available? LCM8's arent exactly modern either.

The Army’s LARC-Vs were built in 1964-65 but were stored from 91 to 98 and then rebuilt with new engines. We have 64 LARC-Vs with only 12 in use at anyone time so plenty of life in the fleet. They are used to support the Army’s Amphibious Beach Team (aka Beachmaster) which controls the beach for landing craft and over beach liquid. The 14 LCM8s were built 67-71 (18 built but four disposed since) and have been rebuilt since. Both the LARC-Vs and LCM8s are to be replaced under JP 2048.

And are those Soldiers in the photos fully kitted out? I don't see kevlar.

They are the beachmaster unit from the Corps of Transport and not equipped for close combat like the infantry. Their unit probably doesn’t even have combat body armour on issue except for operational deployments into theatre.