To me it most needs the PR dept of the RAAF and their ability to demonstrate their wants as needs and demonstrate the increased effectiveness that these platforms provide. Further, the ability to articulate this to Gov't and get it onboard
MB
Most of the big RAAF purchases have good public visibility - surely easier to "sell"? The army less so unless it's choppers. Subs I guess, along with reputation problems, are the worst of the lot.
Not equipment per say but the thing they need the most is for the political class to listen to the services and capability experts rather than state governments looking for a share of the defence pie when signing off on equipment. i.e. UH-60L/M instead of MRH-90s would have been good recommended by the Army and would have been in service in time to support our mission in Afghanistan. Time to start listening to those with the most relevant knowledge, experience and the greatest stake, i.e. the end users and the higher ups who rely on a usable capability to get the job done.
It is surprising how poor the Army seems to be at this - particularly as the capabilities it is pursuing are 'relatively' inexpensive.
Lt.Gen. Leahy as Chief of Army was very good at explaining the need for and fundamental inputs to capability to the Government. His successor Lt. Gen. Gillespie focused on important things like abolishing the beret.
When I read that 200 SAS personnel were being sent over, I assumed they were tp protect the RAAF people, but they will be based far from the action I suppose. So does that mean the SAS will in fact be our "Troops on the Ground" that Abbott is sahying he wont send? Confusing for me, that;s for sure.
There will be 200 personnel in Iraq ("advisers") and 400 in Dubai (No. 1 SQN, RAAF +). The guys in Iraq will most likely be a SOF task force built around an SASR squadron based on currently available open source information. The RAAF force in Dubai will be using a current RAAF presence in an air base and will be very safe and secure on the ground.
When an SASR squadron is tasked for an adviser role they operate in a different manner to when they are tasked for a special recce role. In the 2003 OIF invasion of Iraq the SASR squadron were special recce. The last time we deployed an SASR squadron as advisors overseas (AFAIK) was 1980 to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (aka Colony of Southern Rhodesia) as part of the Commonwealth Monitoring Force.
As advisors the role will be to basically run a brigade worth of local forces and provide them with leadership, stiffening and key capabilities. Its not the same as operating as special recce. Unless of course the local forces fade away...
Not all army personnel will be Special Forces. The Chief of Defence said:
"Australian Special Forces will also be available to deploy in a supporting role to assist Iraqi forces while a number of additional ADF personnel will also deploy into Coalition headquarters to enable us to continue to work closely with our partners as we have done for recent humanitarian air drops and in transporting military stores into Iraq."
Chief of the Defence Force statement on Iraq : Department of Defence
Tas
I would almost guarntee that some will be identifying targets for Super Hornets and other assets.
Advising Iraqi forces that targets have been sufficently softend.
Advising Iraqi forces that targets have been sufficently softend.
The FVEYES (and a few other more capable countries) now have 10+ years of experience of using SOF to do exactly that thanks to Iraq and the 'stan, so I doubt that it's going to change now. And they'll have plenty of targets to choose from.
It's fascinating to think that an entire generation (or two, as things keep going) that are going to cut their teeth hunting down Salafist jihadis. It will be exciting to see what the long term ramifications and benefits learned from that are; the closest analogy that comes to mind is the Brit SOF who learned their trade in Northern Ireland.
its been part of their tasking in both iraq and afghanistan....
so, one would assume that those tasks would also apply now as well.
commonly referred to as "kill or capture" missions
ADF has been trialling APKWS for use from Tiger and perhaps (in future) MH-60R Romeos and fast jets. As far as I have seen, it is not yet a program of record for acquisition and sustainment purposes.
Trackmaster
Member
I saw a passing reference in recent weeks to an additional order for Abrams tanks. Is there any truth in that, or is it a case of wishful thinking?
Could it fit it with the new army structure?
Could it fit it with the new army structure?
The Army is requesting Government to buy an extra 11 tanks. Then reason, oddly enough, is to save money. The Army could support the Beersheeba construct with the current number of tanks, however it would involve a lot of movement of tanks between units and training areas IAW the force gen cycle. Moving tanks is hideously expensive. By buying the extra 11, each unit would be at full strength all the time which would limit any movement of tanks and save money in the medium term. That's in addition to all the other benefits that would come from having extra tanks.
Extra money......replace a good uniform with one thats almost the same, but different enough to have spend a whole lot of $ to kit out the army.
Wonder how much thats going to cost? Will still need different uniforms on some deployments.
11 tanks? Will that enable spares? Also will that include extra recovery vehicles and variants? Hope that goes through.
Wonder how much thats going to cost? Will still need different uniforms on some deployments.
11 tanks? Will that enable spares? Also will that include extra recovery vehicles and variants? Hope that goes through.
The new tanks would come with more RPS as well, however even with the extra tanks the rate of effort wouldn't change much or at all, so usage rates are unlikely to change much. The Army is receiving 5 more M88s as well to enable Plan BEERSHEEBA. Mine plow attachments have also arrived, just waiting for DMO approval before they are used.
Which uniform are you talking about out of interest?
AMCU ? Muti cam?
Pattern dosnt look much different to auscam at 30+m, side by side, no difference.
Now they need new pattern for webbing, vests, packs, etc etc.
Reckon they should have redesigned the cut using the same pattern if they wernt going to change the colour scheme.
good to hear about the M88, s and plows.
Pattern dosnt look much different to auscam at 30+m, side by side, no difference.
Now they need new pattern for webbing, vests, packs, etc etc.
Reckon they should have redesigned the cut using the same pattern if they wernt going to change the colour scheme.
good to hear about the M88, s and plows.
The new pattern won't really be any more expensive than the old. You simply stop manufacturing things in the old pattern, and start manufacturing it in the new. There will be no great mass issue of the new pattern, it will simply slowly replace the old as new equipment is manufactured.