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 flyboyEB
Sadly, here's a less fortunate link to post:
R.I.P
Sad news indeed.
It seems to me ...
It seems to me that the nature of Australia's commitment means that it is almost inevitable that casualties in Afghanistan will continue to climb and that its special operations forces will bare the brunt of these.
Going back to the MEU question is that where Australia is heading?
The LHD's/sealift, the troops, artiliary etc all seem to be avalible for Australia to make a MEU possible.
While Australia could sustain a MEU (barely), I would imagine it would operate long enough to stablise or hold together a hotspot until a collalition or the US turns up to support or escalate the situation.
Which is why I guess there is no opposed landing capability. Although with a 3rd LHD with a dozen F-35B's and additions supplies, troops etc. It would give Australia something pretty close to that level of capability (if for only a short while). Maybe as a coalition...
It seems to me that the nature of Australia's commitment means that it is almost inevitable that casualties in Afghanistan will continue to climb and that its special operations forces will bare the brunt of these.
Unfortunatly you're probably right. The PM also said something to that effect in his Press release about it. But I'm actually suprised that we've lost so few soldiers so far. Are the Special Forces seldom involved in 'heavy' fighting or are they just better and luckier than the Taliban?
It seems to me that the nature of Australia's commitment means that it is almost inevitable that casualties in Afghanistan will continue to climb and that its special operations forces will bare the brunt of these.
Sad news, My heart goes out to the family and pray for those wounded in the battle.
No real surprises here, AS-9 and PzH2000 the two heavyweight contenders and M777 the only lightweight contender.
Whatever the decision outcome on SPH, it will provide significant improvement to our capability. Both guns systems are impressive and with protected element of the SPH, if we also get protected ammunition supply vehicle of K-10 type, it would be a impressive outfit.
on paper...every bn has 4 x rifle coys, 1 x Admin coy, 1 x support coy, and BHQ. Although, in most bns, only 3 x rifle coy,s are manned, and the 4th coy is a training coy manned only with CHQ staff.
this may have changed recently, but i doubt it. the structure of the mech bns was 3 rifle coys, as was 3 and 6 RAR.
Can anyone tell me how many infantry companies would be the norm/average in a Royal Australian Regiment battalion?
It is nominally 4x rifle coy's as Old Faithful suggested. In reality Battalions rarely have more than 3x operational rifle companies at home.
Deployments are another "kettle of fish" however with an extra Coy being added for most deployments (which is why we have seen reserve infantry coy's added to reg battalions deploying to Timor for instance).
This is changing with the infantry 2012 "trial" to commence in 2009 with one of the battalions from 3 Brigade to undertake this trial (the particular battalion hasn't been chosen yet). This structure will formally reduce the battalions to 3x rifle companies, but will add a "maneuvre support platoon" to each company and this platoon will be equipped with the LAND 40 Phase 2 range of weapons to increase the firepower available to each company.
It is nominally 4x rifle coy's as Old Faithful suggested. In reality Battalions rarely have more than 3x operational rifle companies at home.
Deployments are another "kettle of fish" however with an extra Coy being added for most deployments (which is why we have seen reserve infantry coy's added to reg battalions deploying to Timor for instance).
This is changing with the infantry 2012 "trial" to commence in 2009 with one of the battalions from 3 Brigade to undertake this trial (the particular battalion hasn't been chosen yet). This structure will formally reduce the battalions to 3x rifle companies, but will add a "maneuvre support platoon" to each company and this platoon will be equipped with the LAND 40 Phase 2 range of weapons to increase the firepower available to each company.
Couldn't we just have both?!?!? (Maneuvre Support Platoon in each company AND a 4th Company?)
....... es, but will add a "maneuvre support platoon" to each company and this platoon will be equipped with the LAND 40 Phase 2 range of weapons to increase the firepower available to each company.
I am very curious about the differences between the proposed Australian version of the PzH2000 being considered and the discounted new-build Dutch PzH2000s which were offered to the ADF.
The Dutch would likely have been substantially cheaper and in service alot earlier. Is there some capability lacking in the Dutch version that has been included in the proposed Australian version? Otherwise it makes more sense to go with the Dutch offer.
As far as the M777 goes, the ADF is also considering an option to upgrade our M198 along the general lines of the Korean KH179 upgrade (American M114A1 howitzers were substantially upgraded, including a new 155mm/39 gun and new fire-control equipment. This began in 1979 and was completed in 1982).
I am very curious about the differences between the proposed Australian version of the PzH2000 being considered and the discounted new-build Dutch PzH2000s which were offered to the ADF.
The Dutch would likely have been substantially cheaper and in service alot earlier. Is there some capability lacking in the Dutch version that has been included in the proposed Australian version? Otherwise it makes more sense to go with the Dutch offer.
As far as the M777 goes, the ADF is also considering an option to upgrade our M198 along the general lines of the Korean KH179 upgrade (American M114A1 howitzers were substantially upgraded, including a new 155mm/39 gun and new fire-control equipment. This began in 1979 and was completed in 1982).
I am unsure of any potential differences either.
The Dutch offer was for units yet to be built.
The offer was rejected because no in service costings could be made (for whatever reason). http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.p...c=63753.0;wap2
