TheRealist
Member
Sorry to head out on a tangent here but you would think that a country of 25 million people and one of the worlds largest GDP's should have an army with more than 30K people. Just a thought.
Wouldn't one have to ask why the country needs a larger army in the first place and what would the role of this peace-time army be?
MB
Shouldn't look at just the Army but rather the ADF as a whole in regards to it's size. Based on planned expenditure as a % of the GDP (Growing to 2%) and the number of personnel per a capita. In 2025-26 the ADF will have circa 62,400 full time positions for the forces as based on the 2016 DWP, With estimated future pop of 27m for 2025 that will work out to 2.3 troops per every 1000. Based on other nations for the per capita and budget allocated we are within the international norms.
Do I think there should be a cap? I dont know. Always good to have a limit to keep your self from spreading your self too thin but on the other hand if the Army can show they can acquire the extra personnel and all the supporting facilities and assets within there current budget with out weakening everything else then they should be allowed to make the case and implement it. If they cant do that within there current budget then it wont happen, We wont see a budget larger then 2% outside of a major war, We cant shift personnel from the RAN and RAAF as they are just as vital.
Do I think there should be a cap? I dont know. Always good to have a limit to keep your self from spreading your self too thin but on the other hand if the Army can show they can acquire the extra personnel and all the supporting facilities and assets within there current budget with out weakening everything else then they should be allowed to make the case and implement it. If they cant do that within there current budget then it wont happen, We wont see a budget larger then 2% outside of a major war, We cant shift personnel from the RAN and RAAF as they are just as vital.
I would think it to be reasonable to have 4 brigades as the brigades are structured at the moment. That is really just a modest increase in actual personnel numbers, probably only require an extra 1500-2000 extra bodies that could even be manned under the current cap, but some shuffling would be required.
Extra equipment would be considerably more.
An extra squadron of armour. More arty, more engineers, more transport. But not an extreme increase at all.
It would mean bringing 2/RAR to full strength and splitting 8/9 or re raising 4RAR.
That way, it would be possible to have the 3 Beersheba brigades and another 2 Battalions rotate through an ODF cycle.
Extra equipment would be considerably more.
An extra squadron of armour. More arty, more engineers, more transport. But not an extreme increase at all.
It would mean bringing 2/RAR to full strength and splitting 8/9 or re raising 4RAR.
That way, it would be possible to have the 3 Beersheba brigades and another 2 Battalions rotate through an ODF cycle.
TheRealist
Member
Prevention is the best cure
I'd love to see another Division but that would require another 10000+ peeps and unfortunately that probably wouldn't happen unless the strategic situation changes in this part of the world.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I suggest a Brigade, to be a meaningful fighting force, needs at least three manoeuvre BG, preferably four. This provides sufficient force, capable of owning a reasonable AO and being able to achieve operational level objectives. Anything less is just too much overhead for too little force. The fourth BG is likely for one of two roles - RASO or operational reconnaissance (my preference would be for the latter).
How those BG are divided up gets interesting; there is potentially a need for two armoured HQ + two infantry HQ. Now the question of sustainability gets raised; as at least one of those BG has to come from another Bde...
Takao
The Bunker Group
Two problems with this - cost and manning.
We cannot afford the ADF we want, especially the Army. To pay for all of the needed projects is not possible; we cannot afford for an expansion.
Manning wise we get back to the enablers. There is no point of a fourth Bde if we cannot fill the CS and CSS positions. I suggest that if we can find the bodies to do that we look at building up 6, 16 and 17 Bdes to actually be sustainable. Frankly, the infantry is one of the easiest capabilities to raise if we need to mobilise. While mobilisation is an increasingly under-considered factor; if we need to raise another Division than the infantry and transport elements will be the quickest.
With these factors in mind, I'd rather see cuts to the RAR (even as low as a Coy(+) with a Bn HQ) so that we can build sustainable CS and CSS units, especially ones with a long lead time in training.
As just another thought, we have the 13th largest defence budget in the world (based on financial year 2016) but we don’t even rank in the top 50 for the size of our Army.
This is an Army that is moderately well equipped in many aspects of modern warfare, but woefully deficient in others and one that is not at all designed to cope with high intensity warfare where we will suffer high casualities and losses of equipment that is really difficult to replace.
Really makes you wonder what we get in return for all that cash...
But hey, I’m sure good old fashioned ANZAC spirit will get us through...
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Strikes me that the Army has long been treated like a "placeholder" force in the context of high intensity warfare, with RAAF and RAN bearing the greater burden on that front. I imagine that may have to change in the coming decades...
Wonder where we rank in the pay scales? Reckon we would be right up there as far as well paid Armies go.
I’m not so sure filling the positions is the problem. Advertising them seems to be, though...
The reality seems to be that we spend far too much on defence for the return the tax payer receives. That is not defence’s fault entirely many issues seems to be pressed upon it, ie: a virtual entire Navy that must be assembled in Australia because of ‘jobs’ at only 300% of the cost of the same ships built elsewhere. Political imperatives to maintain a geographically dispersed ADF (and more to the point a massively expensive and dispersed Defence Estate) largely absent from the major population centres.
Allowances on deployment that just send pay-packets through the roof, particularly when combined with deployment durations because there are barely sufficient forces at home that can be cobbled together to replace the force in being. Large retention bonuses to have serving members stay in the force, when they are sick to death of horrible postings far away in many cases, from their families.
Yes this is partly a feature of our nation’s geography, but we chose for ‘strategic reasons’ to ‘pivot to the north’ when the bulk of our population is in the South East and will remain there for the forseeable future...
We struggle to man our major national military deterrent in large part because we choose to base it as far away from our population centres as we possibly can and still have it sited on the continental landmass.
It is a peculiar arrangement we seem comfortable with...
And yet what redundancy do the RAN and RAAF have to recover from losses in high intensity warfare?
Army can deploy 2 battalions of about 2 companies each, with supporting elements and we now call this a ‘Brigade.’ We used to call 3 battalions of 4 rifle companies each, plus supporting elements a ‘Brigade’ but I guess times and expectations have changed...
We are down to 11 frigates / quasi destroyers in the RAN surface fleet with maybe 8 deployable at any one time. How many of these are ‘combat coded’? 5 maybe, plus one submarine and one amphibious ship?
The RAAF at maximum effort can generate maybe 48 - 50 combat coded fighters at any one time, plus a few support aircraft and transports?
Seems like a poor return on our investment as the 13th largest spender on defence on the planet. If that is all that can be done on $28b a year, there must be some really crappy military forces out there...
You would be surprised how many service personnel, and their families, enjoy the "remote" postings and happily apply for double postings to stay, or even discharge to avoid leaving.
300% premium for local construction, mmm... no, never has been anywhere like that and has always had more to do with inconsistent procurement over decades than any failing of Australian industry.
One you missed is the serious costs associated with consultants and private contractors who are quite often ex ADF anyway and would be doing the exact same job for less money had the government not decided to "save" and civilianise then privatise the position. Defence is shedding several thousand APS to "reduce costs" when APS are cheaper than uniforms, who in turn are cheaper than private contractors and are usually the same people doing the same job.
In a nutshell APS, ADF and contractors do the same support jobs that were once primarily carried out by the ADF, with some APS support alone. There are far more private contractors than Uniforms in the roles and many more uniforms than APS, yet APS are the cheapest, followed by uniforms with private contractors the most expensive. Uniforms are paid more than the APS because they need to be able to deploy and as such have more demanding requirements placed on them, over and above their civilian equivalents. Private contractors however are paid more than either APS or ADF and are specifically contracted to do only specific things that they can not step outside of.
The really sad thing is many of the senior technical service members are lured away from the ADF by the financial and personal benefits of contracting (they are actually usually full time permanent employees of major defence contractors), instead of staying in uniform and coaching and mentoring junior service personnel.
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
The missing battlegroups?
All,
Regarding the concern that 'new' Beersheba Brigades structures not being able to sustain the desired ready forces of one Brigade plus one Battlegroup, this is not quite correct.
Have a great day, FR
All,
Regarding the concern that 'new' Beersheba Brigades structures not being able to sustain the desired ready forces of one Brigade plus one Battlegroup, this is not quite correct.
- Each Regular Combat Brigade has two associated Reserve Brigades (Heck, three Brigades is a Division but that is another discussion) that are required to provide a solitary Battlegroup to the associated Regular Brigade.
- The Solomon Islands and East Timor showed that Reservists are prepared to undertake tasks overseas and in numbers probably sufficient to sustain a Battlegroup.
- Army Reserve's Battle Group Cannan reinforced more than 30,000 Australian and international defence personnel participating in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2017 (TS17) at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.
- I accept that such Reserve Battlegroups will not be as proficient as the Regulars and currently lack artillery and armour but the 'missing' Battlegroups are not 'missing'. They are committed and appear to be effective.
Have a great day, FR
t68
Well-Known Member
Disagree with that, whilst I applaud that reserves have a new role and are making a contribution to defence overall. Reserves are not there to bolster a minimum capability requirement, reserves are there to supplement the ADF in times of high national emergencies
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
T68,
To quote chief of Army from https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/sp...eserve-transformation-chief-of-army-speech-to in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute (Victoria), Defence Plaza Melbourne, 12.30pm, Thursday 27 July 2017, titled "Australian Army Reserve transformation - A total force":
"Today, the Australian Army is a highly trained and professional force of 45,000 soldiers. We are an integrated ‘total’ force of some 30,000 full time and 15,000 part time citizens. Our Army is focussed on delivering capability outcomes, rather than dogmatic adherence to a particular process to develop and deliver that capability. By embracing different pathways to capability, the Army gains from a broadening of our skills base, attracting a range of generalist and specialist experience to our modern force. The commitment of all our people is the same: to serve our nation in peace and war, as duty requires. The only difference being their employment flexibility, in training but not on operations, associated with full time or part time service. "
....
"A key change concerns the way in which we think about the wider utility of the Reserve. For some decades we have been moving away from the strategic rationale of the Reserve purely as a mobilisation base. Moving away from thinking of it as a separate part of the Army, or even a separate Army, whose purpose was only to generate capability in extremis. In the ‘total force’ model the Reserve contributes to capability in all of our endeavours to defend Australia and secure its national interests."
CoA goes on to document the numbers of reservists serving in "fulltime" roles for a tad including several Brigadiers.
For the past few years Army has taken a different view of the Army Reserve, integrating them somewhat with the Regular Army. It seems to be working (providing the extra battlegroups, carrying out other roles whilst not pissing off the rank and file reservists).
To quote chief of Army from https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/sp...eserve-transformation-chief-of-army-speech-to in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute (Victoria), Defence Plaza Melbourne, 12.30pm, Thursday 27 July 2017, titled "Australian Army Reserve transformation - A total force":
"Today, the Australian Army is a highly trained and professional force of 45,000 soldiers. We are an integrated ‘total’ force of some 30,000 full time and 15,000 part time citizens. Our Army is focussed on delivering capability outcomes, rather than dogmatic adherence to a particular process to develop and deliver that capability. By embracing different pathways to capability, the Army gains from a broadening of our skills base, attracting a range of generalist and specialist experience to our modern force. The commitment of all our people is the same: to serve our nation in peace and war, as duty requires. The only difference being their employment flexibility, in training but not on operations, associated with full time or part time service. "
....
"A key change concerns the way in which we think about the wider utility of the Reserve. For some decades we have been moving away from the strategic rationale of the Reserve purely as a mobilisation base. Moving away from thinking of it as a separate part of the Army, or even a separate Army, whose purpose was only to generate capability in extremis. In the ‘total force’ model the Reserve contributes to capability in all of our endeavours to defend Australia and secure its national interests."
CoA goes on to document the numbers of reservists serving in "fulltime" roles for a tad including several Brigadiers.
Reserves that can be integrated with regular forces at short notice or very short notice include Tradesmen like mechanics, medical professionals,plant operators, air traffic controllers, Commandos, transport units, logistic units. Large combat formations from any corp, will take more time (with the exception of Commandos.) Due to many reasons. Most reserve units are not full strength for a start and are dispersed. Rallying them together, then fully equipping and training will take some time, and short of mobilization, not practical for a 1st rotation deployment anywhere.
ADMk2, In a few posts you made some comments on value for money.
That may be so but is it a really valuable level of calculation of bigger is better. May be 50+ nations with larger military's above us but how well trained are they, how modern is their equipment, how many of them are conscripts etc etc. Also need to look at the product costs within other nations, Australia is simply a more expensive country and nothing will change that.
Pray tell which ships have come in at 4 times the cost of elsewhere outside of Russia or China. Australia tends to include a number of hidden costs that other nations dont so I fail to see how we can compare Australia to another nation in purchase costs, Its apples and oranges.
If you are going to compare us to other nations in terms of bang for our buck then you first need to convert our expenditure to a standard (usually USD) in which case for 2017 it comes to $24.3 billion USD. For that amount we have an airforce made up of younger more modern aircraft then the USAF, We have a combat surface fleet in our navy that is 2/3rds the size of the Royal navy, An amphibious capability punching above our weight, A local industry that has jointly and independently developed global beating technologies. You look at the budget and the size of our force and say we arent getting enough for what we spend, The other side of that argument is other nations arent spending enough having them selves stacked with under trained ill equipped conscripts that are marginally effective.