Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Australian Army Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Stampede G' Day Just re reading the article in Army news regarding Plan Beersheba and 2 RAR ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 3.75 average.
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5281
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 197
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stampede View Post
G' Day

Just re reading the article in Army news regarding Plan Beersheba and 2 RAR , I noticed the plan to integrate reserve units to this unit.

I understand having a budget; but I'm a bit confused as to what Army realistically wants from 2 RAR. Is it to be a force projection capability , training group, amphibious logistical force ,frame work and base for expansion, or is it a unit that is a bit lost in the system!
I would of thought moving forward this would of being a priority battalion / Capability.
Nothing against the Reserves, but more info on 2 RAR would be appreciated.

ahttp://armynews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=10ny

Regards S
Some discussion on this over in "Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
Re my comment about 2 RAR being fleshed out with Reserve units, The Army News (15th June edition) states that reserve companies will be integrated into the establishment of 2 RAR.

ahttp://armynews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=10ny

In a news article the CO of 2 RAR, LTCOL Pashley, stated that "while the ORBAT will be reduced to around 300 fulltime members, the Battalion will have two companies of Reserves permanently attached to it."

https://nscnews.com.au/2rar-changes-course/

...

Tas
This should be a better link than the one both you and Tasman (1st one) supplied:
Defence Newspapers | Army News
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerDirtDart View Post
Preface that I have in no way done a "deep dive" into the 2 RAR's training and development. But, reading the article linked by Tasman, I get the feeling that 2 RAR will be adopting a role somewhat akin to the US Marine Corps' divisional Reconnaissance Battalions
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5282
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
MARKMILES77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 150
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtrotRomeo999 View Post
Article in today's Army News Current Edition : Army News Paper : Department of Defence from Chief of Army on our Combat Brigades on pages 10 and 11:

Each Brigade will have
Two Cavalry Squadrons;
One Infantry Battalion mounted in APCs;
One Infantry Battalion mounted in PMVs.

Rationale is for better integrated mounted capability and joint operations with other forces.
Quote:

The Australian.

DEFENCE Forces gear up to combat regional terror threats

Australian troops hit the beaches during Exercise Talisman Sabre, at Shoalwater Bay, in central Queensland.

RORY CALLINANThe Australian12:00AM July 14, 2017

It’s the largest amphibious assault for Australian troops since WWII but the generals are hoping Exercise Talisman Sabre 2017 delivers another first in proving capability to deploy an emergency “9/11” style force to respond to insurgencies or other regional emergencies.

With a deadly battle raging in the southern Philippines between government troops and Islamic State fighters, and North Korea’s military reach increasing, the joint exercise is a dry run for the Aust*ralian military to deploy a force modelled on US Marines expedit*ionary units.

Says Major General Fergus “Gus” McLachlan: “This is the sort of capability that government could deploy around the region.

“So instead of just flying in a small training team, we can take a combat team and trail alongside our partners Malaysia, Singapore and up into Hawaii, and so we will be able to bring a capacity into the region that is unprecedented.”
Is Plan Beersheba dead?
May be it should be.
The first of the above quotes hints at why it should be and the second quote offers what is likely a more realistic alternative.

Battalions to no longer be alike but to specialise.
Maybe the Brigades should specialise?
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of Plan Beersheba?





So what is the alternative?

Lets call it "Plan Kapyong".

Instead of the Brigade, the Australian Army should focus on Battalion based Battle Groups. Lets call it an Australian Battle Group (ABG). These would be a combined arms fighting force based around an infantry Battalion. Very much along the lines of a USMC MEU. The one BIG difference would be that there would be no attached aviation element. Australia simply does not have enough Tigers, Chinooks, MRH-90s etc to assign each of the ABGs a permanent Aviation element. An aviation element would be attached when a ABG was deployed.
So what would an Australian Battle Group look like?
Lets assume 2RAR is not going to exist as a full infantry Battalion.
That leaves 6 regular infantry Battalions. Therefore the Army would consist of 6 ABGs.

Each ABG would have the following composition:


Command Element
Tank Force
Cavalry Squadron
IFV Squadron
Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battery
Combat Engineer Element
Combat Service Support Element

A few points about some of the subunits:

Command Element would basically be half of current Brigade Headquarters.
No increased manning.

Tank Force: Current plans call for 14 tanks in each Brigade for a total of 42. Dividing that by six gives 7 tanks per ABG. That is an awkward number. Instead increase that to 9 tanks per ABG. 1 Command tank and two tanks troops. That allows an ABG to form three company battle groups each supported by 3 tanks.
An extra 12 tanks (56 staff) would need to be manned across Army.
Each Tank Force would have one attached Armoured Recovery Vehicle.

Cavalry squadron: Each current Brigade is scheduled to have 2 cavalry squadrons and command ASLAVs/ New CRVs for a total of around 50.
An ABG would have 1 Cavalry Squadron and half as many command ASLAVs/new CRVs for a total of 25. No change in total numbers.

IFV Squadron. Current Brigades are planned to have around 108 tracked M113AS4s/IFVs attached. So each Australian Battle Group would have half as many or 54 M113AS4s/IFVs attached. No change in total numbers.

Artillery Battery. Army currently has 3 Artillery Regiments with 3 batteries of 4 guns for a total of 36 guns.
Each ABG battery would be increased to 6 guns. 6X6 equals 36 guns. No change in total numbers.

So an ABG would be:

Infantry Battalion
9 Tanks
25 ASLAVs/CRVs
50 APC/IFV
6 M777s
Numerous Hawkeis and Bushmasters.


But what if Government DOES want a BRIGADE deployed?
Then TWO ABGs would be deployed and a Reserve battle group could still be attached.
MARKMILES77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5283
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16
Threads:
Mark,

Currently we have 59 MBTs and under Plan Beersheba, there is an assumption of about 20 MBTs per Brigade (to allow for maintenance and attrition, so maybe get another 18 or one or two more, to ensure Puckapunyal keeps a full squadron). The idea of using them only to support others is limiting. I would have options including a 14 tank squadron operating as such and the rest supporting some IFV/PMV platoons, so I would suggest these remain a Brigade (or the IFV Battalion) asset and get allocated/used based on circumstances.

As regards the Reserves, they should probably be structured into similar (but skinnier) Battle Groups (no tanks, mortars, etc).

Have a great day, Frank
FoxtrotRomeo999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #5284
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 197
Threads:
A bit under 15 minutes of Talisman Saber:
Australian Troops Conduct Beach Landing During Talisman Saber Joint Military Exercises

10 minutes plus, of mostly the same video. Onboard prep not sped up and almost all of the interviews cut:
Australian Troops Conduct Amphibious Landing Operation | Exercise Talisman Saber 2017
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #5285
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARKMILES77 View Post
Is Plan Beersheba dead?
No. Next?

Seriously the difference is the IFV's are being attached to the battalions as a more efficient means of operating them. Infantry is and was ALWAYS going to be mounted on most ops, regardless of who drives the vehicles.

The 3 regular brigades are maintaining like capabilities. They can rotate through the deployment cycle as needed and Plan Beersheba meets it's intent.

It also provides inherent flexibility. Need a mechanised heavy force? Cool, group to mechanised battalions with 2 tank squadrons and supporting elements for a mechanised TF and off they go. Prefer to use PMV's or as air-mobile light infantry, no problem, group PMV battalions or leave the vehicles behind.

Constant re-org does far more harm to Army capability than whatever we each thing is the 'optimum' employment of our capabilities, compared to what Army is doing to them.

Let's actually ponder the idea for a change of actually following through with a plan, give it some time to bed down and 'breathe' and then perhaps re-evaluate as the best course of action.

Because completely re-structuring Army now into ABG's or whatever will just destroy Army capability for years to come until it can all be ordered and bedded down and then evaluated itself, to see if it is actually a good idea...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #5286
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,380
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
No. Next?

Seriously the difference is the IFV's are being attached to the battalions as a more efficient means of operating them. Infantry is and was ALWAYS going to be mounted on most ops, regardless of who drives the vehicles.

The 3 regular brigades are maintaining like capabilities. They can rotate through the deployment cycle as needed and Plan Beersheba meets it's intent.

It also provides inherent flexibility. Need a mechanised heavy force? Cool, group to mechanised battalions with 2 tank squadrons and supporting elements for a mechanised TF and off they go. Prefer to use PMV's or as air-mobile light infantry, no problem, group PMV battalions or leave the vehicles behind.

Constant re-org does far more harm to Army capability than whatever we each thing is the 'optimum' employment of our capabilities, compared to what Army is doing to them.

Let's actually ponder the idea for a change of actually following through with a plan, give it some time to bed down and 'breathe' and then perhaps re-evaluate as the best course of action.

Because completely re-structuring Army now into ABG's or whatever will just destroy Army capability for years to come until it can all be ordered and bedded down and then evaluated itself, to see if it is actually a good idea...
Yes but what about the psychological damage to the poor digs who thought they were going to be elevated to the lofty heights of RAAC and then finding out they would be stuck in RAINF?
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #5287
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Threads:
My own Talisman Sabre picture, apologies if this is against the rules - but here is what I believe to be a USN MH-60S operating over Kokoda Barracks today.

https://ibb.co/byW9Za
zhaktronz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Days Ago   #5288
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
MARKMILES77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 150
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
No. Next?

Seriously the difference is the IFV's are being attached to the battalions as a more efficient means of operating them. Infantry is and was ALWAYS going to be mounted on most ops, regardless of who drives the vehicles.
No, the IFVs are being attached to ONE of the Infantry Battalions in each of the Brigades and the other Infantry Battalion has none.
So when the Brigade is deployed, one Infantry Battalion will have 50 plus heavily protected IFVs with 50 plus 30mm (or 35mm) cannons and likely 50 turret mounted ATGMs, while the other Infantry Battalion will have NONE.
So what will happen in a real deployment is that the IFV equipped Infantry Battalion will have to swap at least one of it's IFV Companies with one of the other Battalions Bushmaster equipped companies to improve it's fire support.
So why not structure the Battalions how they are likely to deploy?



Quote:
The 3 regular brigades are maintaining like capabilities. They can rotate through the deployment cycle as needed and Plan Beersheba meets it's intent.

It also provides inherent flexibility. Need a mechanised heavy force? Cool, group to mechanised battalions with 2 tank squadrons and supporting elements for a mechanised TF and off they go.
Then how is such a force rotated through the deployment cycle.
You could only send that mechanised force once. Just like prior to Beersheba you could only send a mechanised Brigade (1 Brigade) for a single rotation.
There is no ability to cycle such a force.

Quote:
Constant re-org does far more harm to Army capability than whatever we each thing is the 'optimum' employment of our capabilities, compared to what Army is doing to them.
Then leave the original Plan Beersheba in place.


Quote:
Let's actually ponder the idea for a change of actually following through with a plan, give it some time to bed down and 'breathe' and then perhaps re-evaluate as the best course of action.
Couldn't agree more. Leave the Brigade structured as was originally envisioned under Plan Beersheba.
One ACR and two identical infantry battalions rather than commencing another reorganisation.

BUT, if you are not going to do that you might as well create a more functional force which can be rotated.

Quote:
Because completely re-structuring Army now into ABG's or whatever will just destroy Army capability for years to come until it can all be ordered and bedded down and then evaluated itself, to see if it is actually a good idea...
Well disruption is now inevitable with this latest restructure.
MARKMILES77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #5289
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARKMILES77 View Post
No, the IFVs are being attached to ONE of the Infantry Battalions in each of the Brigades and the other Infantry Battalion has none.
I never said anything to the contrary, when I said 'battalions' it was in the context of 3 battalions across 3 brigades are getting them...

As for your 'big' problem with one of the battalions having 'none' that is the EXACT same situation as right now...


Quote:
So when the Brigade is deployed, one Infantry Battalion will have 50 plus heavily protected IFVs with 50 plus 30mm (or 35mm) cannons and likely 50 turret mounted ATGMs, while the other Infantry Battalion will have NONE.
So what will happen in a real deployment is that the IFV equipped Infantry Battalion will have to swap at least one of it's IFV Companies with one of the other Battalions Bushmaster equipped companies to improve it's fire support.
So why not structure the Battalions how they are likely to deploy?
What? Where did you ever read that, THAT would happen? Such a thing never happened under the original Beersheba plan where one troop of IFV's would be allocated to the 'non-IFV' lift battalion. Why would it therefore happen now?

Oh, of course fire support... So you are perfectly fine with light infantry troops with no armoured 30-35mm cannon support, but should one battalion be given on a permanent rather than rotational basis, suddenly it's a bad thing and the other battalion will be left without? This is a battalion mind you that is getting 7.62mm / 12.7mm /40mm AGL armed Bushmasters PMV's with remote weapon station mountings, that it never had under the original Beersheba plan either, which is a significant direct fire boost in of itself...

Making up scenarios that aren't planned under any version of Beersheba, doesn't make for the strongest argument in my book...

Quote:
Then how is such a force rotated through the deployment cycle.
You could only send that mechanised force once. Just like prior to Beersheba you could only send a mechanised Brigade (1 Brigade) for a single rotation.
There is no ability to cycle such a force.
If that is the case then nor was there under the original Beersheba plan, as there aren't magically any more LAND 400 vehicles under this version of the plan, than there was under the original plan, just different 'owners.'

I don't believe the idea for one second was ever to have the brigades so rigid that they would only ever deploy as light infantry with 'support' vehicles. Rather they will generate TF's for deployment as we ever have, the benefit of 3 ready brigades that are identically trained and equipped is (to my mind) that you could grab an IFV equipped 6RAR (7 Brigade) and an IFV equipped 5RAR (1 Brigade) plus supporting CRV, tank, arty etc capabilities and form a 'mechanised' TF to go and do their thing, without extensive training and re-org lead up time trying to generate this capability from scratch because all 3 Brigades are effectively the same...

OR you could do the same with PMV equipped battalions, OR leave the vehicles behind and go as air-mobile light infantry OR mix and match.

Beersheba of whichever version gives you all of those different options, with differing levels of availability and length of deployment.

Quote:
Then leave the original Plan Beersheba in place.
Can't. Army has strategic direction that trumps this and is required to devote positions and manpower to other priorities. If extra personnel had been funded, Beersheba would have remained the way it was, as I understand it.

Quote:
Couldn't agree more. Leave the Brigade structured as was originally envisioned under Plan Beersheba.
One ACR and two identical infantry battalions rather than commencing another reorganisation.

BUT, if you are not going to do that you might as well create a more functional force which can be rotated.
Can't again, competing priorities...

Quote:
Well disruption is now inevitable with this latest restructure.
Yes, but the scale of your disruption changes the entire Army... The Beersheba 're-org' for want of a better term, is simply moving vehicles and personnel between regiments and battalions in order to free up personnel to help introduce substantial new capabilities such as rocket artillery, a beefed up ground based air defence and land-based anti-ship missile systems.

Such capabilities will substantially increase our overall land combat capability and survivability, points which your ideas do nothing to address...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #5290
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,598
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Yes, but the scale of your disruption changes the entire Army... The Beersheba 're-org' for want of a better term, is simply moving vehicles and personnel between regiments and battalions in order to free up personnel to help introduce substantial new capabilities such as rocket artillery, a beefed up ground based air defence and land-based anti-ship missile systems.

Such capabilities will substantially increase our overall land combat capability and survivability, points which your ideas do nothing to address...

Would that not be robbing Peter to pay Paul?

That to me is a serious shortfall in the teeth of Army, I know Raven mentions the tail is a little thin side too. Roughly how far would we have to expand to man all these postion's existing and newly created?
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #5291
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Would that not be robbing Peter to pay Paul?

That to me is a serious shortfall in the teeth of Army, I know Raven mentions the tail is a little thin side too. Roughly how far would we have to expand to man all these postion's existing and newly created?
Absolutely. But Army has been told to go and introduce these new capabilities and haven't been given the extra positions with which to do so.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #5292
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 485
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Would that not be robbing Peter to pay Paul?

That to me is a serious shortfall in the teeth of Army, I know Raven mentions the tail is a little thin side too. Roughly how far would we have to expand to man all these postion's existing and newly created?
How many service personnel are we short, to have three full brigades? And the other sections too, Commando, Special Forces. etc.?
hairyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #5293
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,598
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
How many service personnel are we short, to have three full brigades? And the other sections too, Commando, Special Forces. etc.?
I'm wondering that too, was hoping AD or Raven could answer if they could.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Day Ago   #5294
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aus
Posts: 255
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARKMILES77 View Post
Instead of the Brigade, the Australian Army should focus on Battalion based Battle Groups. Lets call it an Australian Battle Group (ABG).
I believe there's merit in a modified Beersheba structure centred on combined arms battlegroups but before drawing up hypothetical TO&Es the logic and reasoning needs to be clearly identified. A restructure of this magnitude would likely be as significant as the creation of the RAR post-WW2, just look at the UK and the politics surrounding the loss of hat badges as an example.

The Russians have adopted Battalion Tactical Groups and their reasons for doing so are worth understanding and considering. The experience gained by commanders operating with a combined arms force day-to-day instead of relying on temporary battlegroups seems to be the primary one.
Goknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Day Ago   #5295
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
I'm wondering that too, was hoping AD or Raven could answer if they could.
Would have thought it would be significant - in the range of an additional 5000.

The support brigades would need to be expanded first I would have thought. They need to be able to support the readiness cycle as well.

Examples might include:

+ 16 brigade moving to 3 identical regiments - squadron attack helicopters, company lift assault helicopters, battery lift Chinook
+ GBAD to 3 batteries
+ 20th regiment expanded to have 3 deployable target acquisition units (may already be the case - don't know)
+ When HIMARS acquired - acquiring a decent level of capability - at least a full regiment (3 batteries of 6 launchers each) - suspect would be part of 6th Brigade

This is without fully equipping the brigades themselves.

+ Armoured engineering
+ Cavalry scouts (unless it has been decided that full-time cavalry scouts are no longer relevant)

etc etc

Just some thoughts.

Massive
Massive is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.