Oh well, hand me down Bushies are better than hand me down Landrovers I guess...
I can't wait for the day the Ares RAAC units return to the old joke about soldiers running around the bush yelling "bang"...
I can't wait for the day the Ares RAAC units return to the old joke about soldiers running around the bush yelling "bang"...
Does 4:1 produce a higher quality of troops (more training time?) Canadians have got 3 almost identical brigades atm and seem to be doing fine atm.4:1 is the ideal. Those documents I posted earlier, recognised that 4 fully equipped Brigades are un-achievable with the current level of resourcing of the ADF...
Doesn't mean we don't need it though to meet Government's requirements of Army, just that we'll have to try and do what they want, without the resources to effectively do it.
Gee, when has THAT ever been the situation in Australia?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
If you have a 12 month deployment cycle, having 4 brigades would let you deploy each brigade for only 1 year in four, rather then 1 year in three. 6 month cycle would be similar, just halve each time period.
How long does pre-deployment training take? How long do training courses take? It might be a bit hard for troops to get all their requisite qualifications if they are deploying that often, plus the higher ops tempo of the 1/3 would presumably make it harder to keep toops long term.
Having a 1:4 rotation as opposed to a 1:3 rotation actually allows units to not only rotate through operations, but conduct large scale collective training as well.
For instance, the 1:3 rotation the Australian Army uses doesn't work. It is based on a 24 month force generation cycle whereby each brigade rotates from reset, to readying to ready. However, realistically this doesn't allow enough time to work up to large scale collective training during the readying phase before having to concentrate on the next op. This, among other things, has lead to the overall de-skilling of the army in conducting large scale warfighting.
As an example, my brigade returned from operations in February 2010. This was the start of the reset phase. By the time everyone got back from leave it was April. Ex HAMEL, which was the large scale training activity that certified the brigade for the next round of operations, was in October. The brigade had to go through the entire reset and readying phase in about 7 months. How much collective training do you think got done in this time? How much rest do you think the soldiers of the brigade got? The brigade is now deployed again on operations. The way the Army has tried to mitigate this problem is by moving to a 36 month force generation cycle, which gives 24 months not 16 months between deployments. However, this also means 12 month tours for the brigades.
A 1:4 rotation allows a force generation cycle of reset, readying, ready and deployed. This simply provides the brigade the opportunity to train to the highest levels of collective training before having to conduct pre-deployment training again. With a 36 month force generation cycle, it would also mean only 9 month tours, instead of 12 month tours.
Of course, there is no way the Army is going to be able to grow a fourth manoeuvre brigade. The only way this would be possible would be to integrate the reserves into the brigades, which would provide the mass for an extra brigade. This isn't going to happen though. What is happening is that each reserve brigade will be 'attached' to a regular brigade, and complete the same 36 months force generation cycle as the regular formation. This will mean each regular brigade will have two sister reserve brigades, which between them will be required to generate a single combined arms battlegroup able to be used during the ready phase.
For instance, the 1:3 rotation the Australian Army uses doesn't work. It is based on a 24 month force generation cycle whereby each brigade rotates from reset, to readying to ready. However, realistically this doesn't allow enough time to work up to large scale collective training during the readying phase before having to concentrate on the next op. This, among other things, has lead to the overall de-skilling of the army in conducting large scale warfighting.
As an example, my brigade returned from operations in February 2010. This was the start of the reset phase. By the time everyone got back from leave it was April. Ex HAMEL, which was the large scale training activity that certified the brigade for the next round of operations, was in October. The brigade had to go through the entire reset and readying phase in about 7 months. How much collective training do you think got done in this time? How much rest do you think the soldiers of the brigade got? The brigade is now deployed again on operations. The way the Army has tried to mitigate this problem is by moving to a 36 month force generation cycle, which gives 24 months not 16 months between deployments. However, this also means 12 month tours for the brigades.
A 1:4 rotation allows a force generation cycle of reset, readying, ready and deployed. This simply provides the brigade the opportunity to train to the highest levels of collective training before having to conduct pre-deployment training again. With a 36 month force generation cycle, it would also mean only 9 month tours, instead of 12 month tours.
Of course, there is no way the Army is going to be able to grow a fourth manoeuvre brigade. The only way this would be possible would be to integrate the reserves into the brigades, which would provide the mass for an extra brigade. This isn't going to happen though. What is happening is that each reserve brigade will be 'attached' to a regular brigade, and complete the same 36 months force generation cycle as the regular formation. This will mean each regular brigade will have two sister reserve brigades, which between them will be required to generate a single combined arms battlegroup able to be used during the ready phase.
1:4 rotation would be preferable from a retention perspective particularly when you build in the new Canberra's, which may require elements of a brigade to be assigned to sea for months at a time if participating in regional amphib exercises.
Add to that leave, promotion courses, trade courses, qualification courses, preemployment training, refit and maintenance and time soon get's eaten away before the next operational tour comes around. Families are put under massive strain if battalions are regularly sent on op tours - divorce rates sky rocket.
Apart from the specifics of the force generation cycle the Beersheba ORBAT is extremely similar to that proposed 10 years ago by the “Phantom to Force” parliamentary inquiry in the Army structure. Except rather than pair two ARES ‘demi-brigades’ to provide a high readiness battle group to an ARA brigade the idea was just to combine the ARES brigades into three full strength (or enar enough) formations.
Be interesting to see how the RAAC units emerge from the restructure as armd cav regts (ACR) as there are currently four RAAC units on the ARA order of battle. Will 1 Armd Regt and 2 Cav Regt be combined into 1/2 ACR as B Sqn, 3/4 Cav Regt is brought up to full strength as 3/4 ACR? Or will one of the 1 BDE units displace 3/4 Cav Regt? Or will we follow an American style of doing things and ‘reflag’ 2/14 LHR as either 1 ACR or 2 ACR allowing this traditionally ARES unit return to the reserves and be 11 BDE’s RAAC unit (it doesn’t have one)? Or something completely different like keeping all the tank squadrons badged as 1 Armd Regt attached to each of the cav/LHR units as the ACRs?
Be interesting to see how the RAAC units emerge from the restructure as armd cav regts (ACR) as there are currently four RAAC units on the ARA order of battle. Will 1 Armd Regt and 2 Cav Regt be combined into 1/2 ACR as B Sqn, 3/4 Cav Regt is brought up to full strength as 3/4 ACR? Or will one of the 1 BDE units displace 3/4 Cav Regt? Or will we follow an American style of doing things and ‘reflag’ 2/14 LHR as either 1 ACR or 2 ACR allowing this traditionally ARES unit return to the reserves and be 11 BDE’s RAAC unit (it doesn’t have one)? Or something completely different like keeping all the tank squadrons badged as 1 Armd Regt attached to each of the cav/LHR units as the ACRs?
Frontline combat roles approved for women at Cabinet meeting | Herald Sun
thoughts anyone?
women are going to fully integrated into front line troops within five year.
I believe it can work if done correctly so long as standards aren't lowered. I would prefer if this didn't happen but i believe it is possible I just think its unnecessary. This plan will probably cause a whole lot of other problems. ie issues arising from men and women living together in close proximity in the field may leave the defence force open for more sexual harassment scandals among other things...
thoughts anyone?
women are going to fully integrated into front line troops within five year.
I believe it can work if done correctly so long as standards aren't lowered. I would prefer if this didn't happen but i believe it is possible I just think its unnecessary. This plan will probably cause a whole lot of other problems. ie issues arising from men and women living together in close proximity in the field may leave the defence force open for more sexual harassment scandals among other things...
Many (myself including) have doubts about the effectiveness of woman in combat however it doesn't mean they don't deserve a go. In Israel they have women in front line combat duties and they seem to be doing fine otherwise it would have been prohibited already. But one thing to remember is that Israel has pressing needs to boost it's military manpower since it share borders with countries (especially now) that are not too fond of the Jewish nation. So any issues with woman in front line duties will be sweep under a big rug called "national security" as they really can't afford to loose the additional manpower they bring to the IDF.
Running the risk of being told off going off topic here, I would assume that the ADF will gradually introduce women to front line services by doing limited trails with selected units to gauge the overall combat effectiveness before throwing the door open. As long as they monitor this concept carefully and not succumb to political pressure from the Minister of Defence to speed up the integration, I can't see any reason for giving women on front line duties a go but it must be done gradually and carefully so combat effectiveness isn't compromised.
justsomeaussie
Member
The question that isnt being asked let alone answered in public is, why in do we segregate women into their own events in almost every sport. It's almost as if there is a physical difference between the two where it would be unfair to expect women to compete against men.
I have no problem with women going into combat roles. It's not a whole lot of women out there which have the mindset for combat troops out there anyway. Let the few have a go if they want.
We have women in frontline duty in A-stan (from grunt to Captain) and they seem to be just as effective as their male counterparts.
The biggest problem is that armies tend to have different standards for men and women. This is ok in sports but it is not ok when they occupy the same job as their male comrades which may include humping an incredible load over long distances or having to pull a wounded 180lb comrade out of an AFV.
We have women in frontline duty in A-stan (from grunt to Captain) and they seem to be just as effective as their male counterparts.
The biggest problem is that armies tend to have different standards for men and women. This is ok in sports but it is not ok when they occupy the same job as their male comrades which may include humping an incredible load over long distances or having to pull a wounded 180lb comrade out of an AFV.
Time to let women engage in boxing and MMA against their male counterparts too I reckon.
Obviously weight divisions have to be taken into consideration and people have to fight in their correct divisions, but as we're all equal now it shouldn't be a problem should it?
Should be a pretty fair and close match up I'd say.
Obviously weight divisions have to be taken into consideration and people have to fight in their correct divisions, but as we're all equal now it shouldn't be a problem should it?
Should be a pretty fair and close match up I'd say.
Para 3
New Member
Frontline Females
It is an issue I have seen first hand on many occasions.
The Australian Army already has differing requirements for age and sex. There are baselines that infantry for one have to meet, and this I fear is where the political interference will start when not enough females can meet the requirement. Rather than state a failing in achieving a 'quota' they will step in and lower the baseline to fit the model.
It is an issue I have seen first hand on many occasions.
This is a HUGE mistake for the Australian military, for the following reasons:
Statements like: 'Women serve in combat units in other Western forces, so why not Australia', is a shallow cop-out clause to appease the 'feminista'. A women patrolling/manning a checkpoint in the West Bank or operating out of a FOB in Afghanistan for a few days at a time is not the same as being part of infantry platoon on a jungle rotation for 3-6 weeks in austere conditions. The two first examples will allow access to washing and hygiene facilities (five day rule in US military for women) the latter does not. A women (particularly if on her menstrual cycle) will not be able to go without a shower for an extended period simple as that. In a jungle environment she will compromise the patrol against a well acclimatized enemy.
The other argument reference weight carrying ability, endurance etc., - basically as long as she passes selection/training she can join the boys. Well that's another load of rubbish, the UK military conducts scientific and physical tests every couple of years and the results have been the same, females do not have the same carrying capacity or physical strength as their male counterparts full-stop. If that was the case then as Olympians males and females would compete equally, but they don't end of story.
The other elephant in the room is testosterone - male-female relationship conflict, rank rape (raised in the US military), unwanted and unplanned pregnancy leading to shortened tours.
Women should not serve in units that are required to kill the enemy at close quarters, carry heavy personal loads and be expected to live in the field for extended periods in austere conditions - infantry and SF (other than attached for black role missions or HQ function). Political correctness will lead to physical tests being reduced to better facilitate gender equality.
Australia has rushed into this after the recent training academy scandal's, where is the evidence they have actually conducted any real scentific evaluations in different climatic conditions faced by the modern infantry soldier pitching women against men? Ironically loads in the field are increasing not decreasing (improved body armour, increased ammunition loads etc.) so the women are going to find it harder not easier to compete on long tabs unless you argue that there will always be a APC or helo to do the heavy lifting or the men only get to carry the mortar base plate, 81mm rounds, LAW, GPMG etc.
Statements like: 'Women serve in combat units in other Western forces, so why not Australia', is a shallow cop-out clause to appease the 'feminista'. A women patrolling/manning a checkpoint in the West Bank or operating out of a FOB in Afghanistan for a few days at a time is not the same as being part of infantry platoon on a jungle rotation for 3-6 weeks in austere conditions. The two first examples will allow access to washing and hygiene facilities (five day rule in US military for women) the latter does not. A women (particularly if on her menstrual cycle) will not be able to go without a shower for an extended period simple as that. In a jungle environment she will compromise the patrol against a well acclimatized enemy.
The other argument reference weight carrying ability, endurance etc., - basically as long as she passes selection/training she can join the boys. Well that's another load of rubbish, the UK military conducts scientific and physical tests every couple of years and the results have been the same, females do not have the same carrying capacity or physical strength as their male counterparts full-stop. If that was the case then as Olympians males and females would compete equally, but they don't end of story.
The other elephant in the room is testosterone - male-female relationship conflict, rank rape (raised in the US military), unwanted and unplanned pregnancy leading to shortened tours.
Women should not serve in units that are required to kill the enemy at close quarters, carry heavy personal loads and be expected to live in the field for extended periods in austere conditions - infantry and SF (other than attached for black role missions or HQ function). Political correctness will lead to physical tests being reduced to better facilitate gender equality.
Australia has rushed into this after the recent training academy scandal's, where is the evidence they have actually conducted any real scentific evaluations in different climatic conditions faced by the modern infantry soldier pitching women against men? Ironically loads in the field are increasing not decreasing (improved body armour, increased ammunition loads etc.) so the women are going to find it harder not easier to compete on long tabs unless you argue that there will always be a APC or helo to do the heavy lifting or the men only get to carry the mortar base plate, 81mm rounds, LAW, GPMG etc.
Once again Rik you draw a conclusion about the ADF based on a very knowledge poor position. And true to form this opinion bears no relevance to what is actually going on.
The ADF has been working towards opening all positions up to women for at least 5-6 years and despite the Cabinet decision (which is required to replace an enforceable policy of the Government) women won’t be able to serve in these units until 2012. And it won’t be carte blanche.
The time required for this change is to finalise the PES: physical employment standards that are begin established for each position. In order for a woman – and a man – to qualify for infantry training they will have to meet the PES via a test of some sort. So women won’t be allocated to infantry who physically can’t do the job.
Of course there are other issues but as long as the PES isn't comprimised physical capability should not be one of them.
My views are not confined to just Australia but any military who train and expect to send their forces on extended missions out of their comfort zone (defence of the home land) in austere conditions. The reference to Aus was simply because the question was asked for peoples veiws.
I would be grateful if anyone can post a link to any formal Aus military test results ref women/men in combat roles.
Time will tell if standards remain the same, however I'm sceptical and have spoken to colleagues in the US and UK who have and are still serving in combat zones who can provide plenty of examples of seeing rules bent and standards dropped to create the allure that women can compete with men in the field.
Remember this is my personal view at the end of the day, but until women compete equally with men at the Olympics then don't expect women to carry the same loads in the field over the same distances without the aid of motorised support. And you can't get around the fact that women need access to hygiene facilities more than their male counterparts, unless that is you restrict applications to 'ladyboys' only.
To me it's simple - If I command a platoon I expect each man/women in that platoon to be able to pull his/her weight and carry all supporting ammo, comms, light, medium weapons and keep up on a tab. I don't want to face a two tier situation where only a limited number are allocated as heavy lifters.
Doing entry tests for the military can never truely duplicate field conditions, it just sets a minimum benchmark from which you can build-on during training. Unfortunately for women the max strength threshhold will be lower than that of males regardless of how many pull-ups, press-ups, bench pressing they do. It's not just about lifting your own body weight but another 60 odd lbs on top.
I don't have a propblem with women serving as fighter pilots, gunners, even tankies, but front line bayonet wielding infantry - no way.
Last edited:
Hey Rik,
I have served with a woman who was 85kg's, 6 foot 1 in height and could run 5 klicks in just on 20 minutes. Are you trying to tell me that she is less physically capable than a 5 foot 5 bloke who weighs 53kg's? Because I have served in a front line infantry unit with a couple of guys about that size - and trust me she carried the gun better than most small blokes.
Your last paragraph is where you let your gender bias get in the way of your own argument. So you'd be happy serving in an armored vehicle if you were not a small bloke (I weighted around 89kg's when I played rugby) - yet you'd be happier to have some bloke 5 foot 5 in height and built like a whippet try and get you out of a turret whilst denying the woman I mention earlier? That just doesn't make sense.:tomato
For Clearence divers, this will be interesting as the CDs i know, are fitter then most male PTIs around, and im willing to see the female PTIs compare to CDs for best indications.
ive got to ask this, now that women can serve in combat roles, does that mean across the board women will be required to conduct their PFT at the same level as men, as currently its less then a male counterpart. push ups, sit ups and beep test should be level for all, but not drop from the male basic standards. We want to equalise and not discriminate, well heres a good start...why dont we ever hear about this rather then the combat roles, 14.5% of the ADF are women, and they dont work annually to the same level as men, so it affects them more then combat roles which is only 4-5% of the roles available...why, because it wouldnt work. If people want to be serious in this, then i want 1 rule across the board, not patch work.
ive got to ask this, now that women can serve in combat roles, does that mean across the board women will be required to conduct their PFT at the same level as men, as currently its less then a male counterpart. push ups, sit ups and beep test should be level for all, but not drop from the male basic standards. We want to equalise and not discriminate, well heres a good start...why dont we ever hear about this rather then the combat roles, 14.5% of the ADF are women, and they dont work annually to the same level as men, so it affects them more then combat roles which is only 4-5% of the roles available...why, because it wouldnt work. If people want to be serious in this, then i want 1 rule across the board, not patch work.
Just repeating what other people have said already and I think it about sums it up.
As long as they keep the same standards for both men and women it will be fine. This means statistically maybe not as many women will make it in for front line service as opposed to their male counterparts.. but the ones who do make it will be just as good as their counterparts. (going through the same requirements)
As long as they keep the same standards for both men and women it will be fine. This means statistically maybe not as many women will make it in for front line service as opposed to their male counterparts.. but the ones who do make it will be just as good as their counterparts. (going through the same requirements)
They can’t serve until 2012 when the new role specific PES will come into place. How this effects the PFT/BFT remains to be seen but its likely to as one would imagine all the different jobs will then have different levels of physical fitness testing.