Because such a plan would be an absurd idea and completely invalidate the entire purpose of Plan BEERSHEEBA.
No it's not.
Train as you intend to fight? That makes sense, although if the money were available it would be nice to have an Armoured / Mechanised brigade stationed in the south (Pucka) as well. This would have a tank regiment, armoured infantry and mech battalions as well as a cav sqn and SPG battery in addition to the new Armoured cav and aviation regiments.
Won't happen due to money, manning and government.
The APC squadron is designed to be able to lift an infantry battalion. So with the Army having before (on paper) Beersheba 5 & 7 RAR and B (APC) Sqn, 3/4 Cav Regt that is a retention of the mechanised lift for three infantry battalions.
The Armoured Cavalry capability is not changing too much in the troops (18 to 14) though it is worth noting the Amry has struggled to provide (ie it hasn’t) 18 troops of ASLAVs with an operational deployment underway. The number of squadrons is reducing somewhat from six squadrons each with three troops to three squadrons each with four troops (not counting the ARE assets). But this is an area which will no doubt cause some debate into the future. It should be worth trialling at least at some time an ACR with two armd cav sqns each with two troops as it might be a better and more flexibile organisation. And with LAND 400 and ideas like a recce bn, RAR (to provide the dismounts) maybe a return to six squadrons with 18 troops in addition to the ARE armd cav element.
As to the tanks the Army has enough for three squadrons grouped as a regiment. The cut back to two squadrons was a financial saving demanded by the Gillard Govt.
Well that’s where the Army is. In Townsville and Brisbane (and Adelaide) more than in Darwin. Why shouldn’t the Army be a balanced structure?
That would be a disaster for recruitment and retention of the RAAC not to mention a huge additional cost on maintenance for the A vehicle fleet. Concentration of all corps units in one area, and the least popular and effective area for training in the country, is not going to work.
Those force packages are usually put together from co-located units. Its one of the lessons learned that putting together a force package from units across the country that is driving Beersheba. As to peace time vehicles that has a lot more to do with life in combat support units rather than the armoured corps. We don’t have any peacetime tanks and IFVs in the A vehicle fleet.
Beersheba is being implemented at an additional cost to improve the effectiveness of the Army. Its not being done to save money.
The irony of it is Beersheba is nothing new. It was the Army’s orbat before and after the VietNam War. It was only experimentation made permanent (para and mech inf) and the vagrancies of APIN that changed the order of battle away from a common multi role brigade. And there is been a solid push for over 10 years to return the Army to this structure. The only difference between the Beersheba brigade and that of the Army in the 1970s was the old structure had the tanks concentrated away from any brigade. But that was because they were seen as a divisional asset and the Army no longer has a divisional structure.
As to the tanks the Army has enough for three squadrons grouped as a regiment. The cut back to two squadrons was a financial saving demanded by the Gillard Govt.
It seems to me that 59 tanks is a very small number of tanks for Australia. I know we had over 100 Centurians in the day, and over 100 Leopards. Why is it that we now only have half as many? Is there any reason for this heavy reduction in numbers apart from saving the government money?
It seems to me that 59 tanks is a very small number of tanks for Australia. I know we had over 100 Centurians in the day, and over 100 Leopards. Why is it that we now only have half as many? Is there any reason for this heavy reduction in numbers apart from saving the government money?
LAND 907 was scoped as the bare minimum number of tanks to equip a regiment and replace the Leopard. Which was always better than nothing. The extra 40 tanks provides for a special equipment troop in the regiment and an attrition reserve. Also additional tanks for training which aren't needed for the Abrams because it comes with some simulators.
Okay, but so does my suggestion. Provides the same thing...
Fair enough.
I actually couldn't agree more. I'm simply pessimistic that the Government will see it that way.
The tanks, most of the ASLAV's and M113's are already based and appropriately housed in Darwin and Adelaide.
They also have the artillery, ARH, combat support services and training areas in Darwin and Adelaide to conduct the combined arms training and generate the deployable capability that Army wants.
It's the status quo and has been ever since APIN came around. The tanks, ASLAV's and APC's ARE already mostly based in Darwin, apart from the training schools.
Last I heard 3/4 Cav only had Bushmasters and 2/14 was the only ASLAV unit in the Country outside Darwin.
Beersheba would incur significant costs in moving units from Darwin to Townsville and Brisbane. I don't doubt the idea is good, but it's Army's idea and as we've all seen, Army's ideas aren't necessarily Government's ideas...
We don't have any wartime tanks or IFV's in reserve units any longer either. Again, purely a cost cutting exercise. I get that ridding the reserve of M113's or a decent replacement actually facilitates better training opportunities (individual and collective) but it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It assumes we'll never actually need the combat capability of the reserve as a unit or sub-unit and they only exist in order to flesh out the ARA...
It hasn't even been fully approved by Government nor funded as far as I have seen. Where are the work announcements for facilities for the ACR's in Townsville or Brisbane?
To the best of my recollection it was adopted "in principal" and the fact that Army is trialling the structure in recent times, ahead of a major trial at TS, indicates that even Army isn't entirely sold on the idea, yet.
I get that, my point is purely that IF the money isn't forthcoming and so far it hasn't been, the plan will fall over, like so many Army plans before it and something else wil have to take it's place.
My point then would be to use the best parts of the deployment routine generated for our current operations and the cheapest aspect of the way we've trained in the past (B vehicles for training, A vehicles for work-ups and operations).
Actually, 1 Armd Regt has been only two squadrons of tanks for 20 years. C Sqn hasn't existed for god knows how long. No tanks were mothballed as part of the cost saving either - extra M113s were mothballed instead. Growing the tank regiment to three squadrons is actually one of the hardest parts of Plan BEERSHEBA.
Actually, BEERSHEBA is theoretically cost neutral. There is no extra money at all to enable it - it must be delivered out of current budgets.
How is it not approved by Government - it had its own chapter in the new White Paper! It is signed off by government, and the Army is already adopting the new structures. 5 and 7 RAR have dismounted, 6 and 8/9 RAR are in the process of it, the school of armour has stopped training grunts on M113 and is starting up M113 courses for RAAC, 2 Cav already has a squadron trained on M113, B Sqn 3/4 Cav are about to lose their Bushies for M113s, the CSSBs are about to receive PMVs, 2 Cav is moving to Townsville starting next year etc.
BEERSHEBA is happening. The detail might (will) change, but the basic structure of the MCBs will not.
Ah, no. Not even close. Not even close to being close.
Cost neutral in that the Army won’t be funded more for it. But there will certainly be a lot of costs for Beersheba. They are being paid for by cut backs in other Army expenditures. Like the abolishment of the HRR.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
The contract with MAN for Phase 3B trucks finally got signed.
Re LAND 106 (upgrade of our M113's). From the information I can gather, the upgrade costed us $1B? Were purchasing AAV-7's ever considered along with upgrading some of the M113's? As previously raised, surely someone with some logic has to observed the US using them in amphibious landings off their LHD's and put 2 and 2 together (Talisam Sabre anyone??). Instead we're relying on our old LARC's.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yu5aEbtzl...s640/1003146_661072697254248_1770095627_n.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yu5aEbtzl...s640/1003146_661072697254248_1770095627_n.jpg
LARCVs are not used for anything like you would use an LVTP7 (aka AAV) for by the Australian Army or the USMC. The primary role of the LARCV in today’s Army is to land the Beachmaster teams that recce and prep the beach for incoming LCMs and LCHs (and the once every commission beaching of Tobruk).
Of course the LVTP7 was never considered for LAND 106 because this was just a scope creep program for upgrading in service M113A1s. It started with an A1 to A3 upgrade back in 1990, then added a water cooler, then a new turret, then new armour, then a hull lengthen to accommodate the new turret and so on…
Had my first ever close up look at a Bushmaster and a M777 yesterday, very impressed with both. The ASLAV is smaller than I remember but I have probably been contaminated by the opportunity I had to have a look at a NZ LAV III a couple of years ago.
Been to the show Volk?
Lavs are a great bit of gear, nd was my first close up of the bushmaster to. I was impressed with the bushes, hope we can get some export orders, considering the rumour that we have hundreds sitting in storage somewhere!
Kiwi,s maybe?
Lavs are a great bit of gear, nd was my first close up of the bushmaster to. I was impressed with the bushes, hope we can get some export orders, considering the rumour that we have hundreds sitting in storage somewhere!
Kiwi,s maybe?
Ah huh, braved it with the terrors, needed a crow bar to get my two year old out of the ASLAV. Wasn't too bad actually, no where near as crowed as I am used to. Just need to swing a look at an Abams and a Tiger.
t68
Well-Known Member
If you don't mind me asking, where's the show at and for how long?
t68
Well-Known Member
Thanks mate, just a bit far to go for the day.
One of my favourite photos shows the difference in size between an ASLAV and a LAVIII (in this case Stryker)
[ame="http://s636.photobucket.com/user/RavenG22/media/IMGP0342.jpg.html"]IMGP0342.jpg Photo by RavenG22 | Photobucket[/ame]
I suppose the ASLAV really is more of an armoured car than an APC or MICV, a true cavalry vehicle rather than a mount for infantry. I wonder if this will be taken into account in LAND 400 or whether it will be more a case of one size fits all.
Just had a look at the other photos there - that's one hell of an overhang on the turret
when rotated to the rear. Only way in or out for the driver would be through the turret?