This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; With the SSO option I imagine they would be turning people away. If things ever got tight, say if the ...
With the SSO option I imagine they would be turning people away. If things ever got tight, say if the government selected a helicopter that was actually available and could be delivered on schedule they could introduce NCO pilots and also do as the UK does and offer pilot training to serving officers on a short term basis, i.e. spend several years as a captain flying instead of bouncing around staff and training roles before returning to their original Corps as a major.
I imagine there are RAAC Captains who would jump at the chance to avoid shunting between Puka and Kapuka or perhaps the purgatory of being an Adj at an GRES Light CAV Regt / Sqn.
In regards to the plan Beersheba and the new Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) is there going to be any new equipment incoming to armored component in the way of logistical/combat support and will we reinstate the mothballed Abrams MBT?
I know we have a limited number of tracked armored logistic vehicle in what numbers I don’t know, but is there any plans for this like M1 Assault breacher Vehicle, M104 bridge layer or beach armored recovery vehicle like the UK “hippo” which can assist other vehicles off the beach or push the landing craft off the beach.
We did have one many moons ago using M3A5 grant tank hull, but what I did not know was that using the same hull was our own SPG known as Yeramba using a 25 pounder as the main armament but that’s another story.
In regards to the plan Beersheba and the new Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) is there going to be any new equipment incoming to armored component in the way of logistical/combat support and will we reinstate the mothballed Abrams MBT?
The Abrams were never mothballed beyond the long term reduced manning of 1 Armd Regt. In the end the mothballing program was restructured to take into account Project Beersheba and the transfer of the M113AS4 from the mechanised infantry to the armoured corps. So in place of a squadron of Abrams the rest of the mech inf allotment of M113AS4s were mothballed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68
I know we have a limited number of tracked armored logistic vehicle in what numbers I don’t know, but is there any plans for this like M1 Assault breacher Vehicle, M104 bridge layer or beach armored recovery vehicle like the UK “hippo” which can assist other vehicles off the beach or push the landing craft off the beach.
LAND 400 has capacity for new armoured vehicles for the mechanised combat engineer squadron in each “Beersheba” brigade. There is a project in the DCP for new “gap crossing” which could include a AVLB. JP 2048 provides coverage for all of the amphibious vehicles replacement and should include a BARV but AFAIK none have been specified. But if amphibious over the beach training goes out from the ultra-high beach gradient of Cowley Beach safely behind the Great Barrier Reef they will quickly find themselves in the need of a BARV.
The Abrams were never mothballed beyond the long term reduced manning of 1 Armd Regt. In the end the mothballing program was restructured to take into account Project Beersheba and the transfer of the M113AS4 from the mechanised infantry to the armoured corps. So in place of a squadron of Abrams the rest of the mech inf allotment of M113AS4s were mothballed.
LAND 400 has capacity for new armoured vehicles for the mechanised combat engineer squadron in each “Beersheba” brigade. There is a project in the DCP for new “gap crossing” which could include a AVLB. JP 2048 provides coverage for all of the amphibious vehicles replacement and should include a BARV but AFAIK none have been specified. But if amphibious over the beach training goes out from the ultra-high beach gradient of Cowley Beach safely behind the Great Barrier Reef they will quickly find themselves in the need of a BARV.
Too bad they don't run a reserve Sqn in 1 Armd any more. I suppose the reason is cost but I still think it is a shame. I wonder how much it would actually cost if most of the training was done on simulators with the troops flying in for annual exercises.
As the Pentagon pours attention and resources into the conflict-ridden Asian-Pacific theater, it's made an unheard of command choice.
The AP reports Australian Maj. General Richard Burr is now Deputy Commanding General for Operations at U.S. Pacific Command (USARPAC) out of Hawaii.
It's the first time a non-American has served in such a high-ranking position at this type of command.
This isn't some out-of-the way little military base — this is the command led by Major General George Moore in the days after World War II. Moore fought at Battan along with enough other dark Pacific campaigns to fill a wall map. This command today will be pivotal in organizing and supplying military operations in the region, and key in building U.S. projection within the Asian theater.
USARPAC is commanded by LTG. "Frank" Wiercinski, who just left the Acting Commander Spot at Ft. Campbell, home to the 101st Airborne Division. That "Air Assault" group called the Screaming Eagles has perhaps been deployed more in the past ten years than any other military division in the U.S.
With nearly non-stop, back-to-back deployments, LTG Wiercinski has a bevy of experience with active troop rotations "down range". That logistical, hands-on experience with forward troops may come in handy if conflicts spring up in the region.
Together the men will package and deliver troops to locations U.S. forces haven't been in decades. It seems like a solid match as the Pacific Command strives to fulfills its mission:
USARPAC postures and prepares the force for unified land operations, responds to threats, sustains and protects the force, and builds military relationships that develop partner defense capacity in order to contribute to a stable and secure USPACOM area of responsibility.
They've got their work cut out for them as the U.S. tries to renew and forge fresh relationships with countries throughout the Pacific Rim.
Along with many medals and USMC training, Maj. Gen. Burr is also holds the honor of the Patron of the Defence Australian Rules Football Association.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
In regards to the plan Beersheba and the new Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) ...
Along this line of thought, just how "Amphibious" are the ASLAV's? As a civvy with no experiance with the units I was wondering just how they would be deployed in Beersheba type operations centered around a LHD launching base. I have the impression they would be perfectly suited for these types of missions.
Along this line of thought, just how "Amphibious" are the ASLAV's? As a civvy with no experiance with the units I was wondering just how they would be deployed in Beersheba type operations centered around a LHD launching base. I have the impression they would be perfectly suited for these types of missions.
Amphibious enough to require an LCM-1E landing craft to get them over the beach...
The ASLAV swim capability is for crossing rivers not beach surf. They would be swamped and sunk if they tried to swim through any kind of surf. Plus the ASLAV is no longer amphibious with the spall liner armour kit fitted not to mention other extra gear. The project to rebuild the ASLAVs with the higher protection level and amphibious capability was cancelled a few years ago.
I was just wondering why when compared to other army's around the world do we have so little tank numbers? I know that they cost a crap load of money but is that the reason or is it because of our wonderful island nation and the very remote possibility of a land invasion? If that is the case what is the point of having any at all?
Also what is the point of having them when we don't send them anywhere anyway? were we asked to contribute any to Iraq and Afghanistan? and while I am asking when was the last time one of our tanks shot their guns/cannons in anger? It will be interesting to hear the answers thanks.
I was just wondering why when compared to other army's around the world do we have so little tank numbers? I know that they cost a crap load of money but is that the reason or is it because of our wonderful island nation and the very remote possibility of a land invasion? If that is the case what is the point of having any at all?
Also what is the point of having them when we don't send them anywhere anyway? were we asked to contribute any to Iraq and Afghanistan? and while I am asking when was the last time one of our tanks shot their guns/cannons in anger? It will be interesting to hear the answers thanks.
Tanks and heavy armour are expensive, and emphasis in the 80's and 90 was more low intensity stuff.
The point of having any at all is that we retain the skillset to expand our forces in the future. If we get rid of gun tanks, you cannot just buy/inherit some armour and toss some APC drivers in the seats and hope for a decent outcome.
One of the reasons I believe that we selected the Abrams was commonality with the septics. The idea being that in case of a Desert Shield type scenario, our tankies could be flown to pre-positioned US M1's and they could provide experienced crews.
IMO, I would have preferred to see refurbished late model Leo2's replace our L1's from all of the downsized european stocks, but that would have precluded the ability to dovetail with the yanks. FWIW, there is certainly nothing wrong with our selection of the Abrams, I just get a bigger chubby from the L2.
Last time our tanks were used in anger was Vietnam (Centurions), they may have been useful in Afg, (there are some MBT's in theatre and they have proven very useful), but over there there is Arty and air available, and the cost and manpower required to operate and maintain would have meant increasing our numbers out of all proportion to the additional utility they would have provided. Increased numbers and cost = political suicide.
I was just wondering why when compared to other army's around the world do we have so little tank numbers?
The primary role of Australian Army tanks is infantry support. The usual force ratio for infantry support is one armoured regiment per infantry division. Since there is one regular infantry division there is one regular armoured regiment. The same applies for the numbers of field artillery and combat engineers but with different ratios. This ratio would be adjusted if we were to raise an armoured formation. That is a formation where the tanks are the primary combat capability and the infantry supports them.
Instead of increasing the numbers of our Abrams tank,which we apparently dont need to do, would it be an idea to acquire a light tank, such as the Swedish CV90, or would such a tank have no position in the Australian Army?
Instead of increasing the numbers of our Abrams tank,which we apparently dont need to do, would it be an idea to acquire a light tank, such as the Swedish CV90, or would such a tank have no position in the Australian Army?
CV90 is more a combat vehicle(CV) than a tank.It carrys a number of infantry in the back that can dis mount and fight.A tracked vehicle like this is lacking in the ADF. Unless you count our upgraded M113 with a 7.62mm gun.
Instead of increasing the numbers of our Abrams tank,which we apparently dont need to do, would it be an idea to acquire a light tank, such as the Swedish CV90, or would such a tank have no position in the Australian Army?
CV90 isn't a light tank its an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). A light tank carries a big gun like a tank but without the thick armour to decrease gross weight. There is a requirement for an IFV to replace our current force of ASLAVs and M113AS4. This project is called LAND 400.
