New battalion for ADF?

cherry

Banned Member
Does anyone know if there is any truth to the following article taken from the "The Australian" a week or so ago?

THE army plans to create a second mechanised battalion in Adelaide as part of a $1.6 billion long-term restructuring plan soon to be considered by the Howard Government.

Under the proposed shake-up, Adelaide would become an important new base for the army, with units transferring from interstate locations, including Holsworthy, on Sydney's southwestern outskirts, and the Northern Territory, by 2010.

Adelaide is seen as the ideal location for a new mechanised unit, with housing costs far lower than in Sydney and an all-weather rail link to training areas in the Northern Territory.

The plan would involve the 3rd Royal Australian Regiment, based at Holsworthy, becoming part of the new Adelaide-based mechanised formation.

The expanded mechanised infantry force would be equipped with light armoured fighting vehicles such as those in service in Iraq with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 5/7 RAR.

Army planners believe a new focus on Adelaide will also help retain skilled manpower with better employment opportunities for soldiers' spouses. The army intends to offset some of the cost of the reorganisation by disposing of surplus property in Sydney.



The army's "hardening and networking" submission to be considered by cabinet's National Security Committee next month would be the first step in a radical change in the make-up of the army, which has changed little in the past 50 years.

The 10-year shake-up of the army's core structure would see the army gain an extra 1500 troops, taking the total size of the force to 28,000 by 2010.

The cost of the plan will be the biggest challenge for army chief Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy as the spiralling costs of capital equipment and personnel place extra pressure on the $17 billion defence budget.

The Defence Capability Investment Committee, which includes the defence chiefs and senior civilians, considered the army submission last month but wanted more information on the broad costs before giving its full endorsement.

"They haven't done the hard work on the business case - where the money is coming from," one senior defence source said.

The aim is to provide a combat force with greater protection, mobility and firepower to meet what army experts will be a far more complex and fluid battlefield in the 21st century.

A key requirement of the army, outlined in the 2000 Defence White Paper, is to be able to sustain a brigade size force (about 3000 troops) on operations for an extended period - a task that demands a larger army than the current 26,000 force. Army planners believe that the traditional battalion structure of about 1000 men needs to be remodelled into smaller, more combat-effective units.

If this is a genuine case, what are the implications for equipment procurement? Will more ASLAVs or M113s need to be purchased? More artillery under Land 17 etc, etc?:confused:
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I seriously doubt that the Parachute Battalion capability will be removed from the Army completely, which is why I doubt 3RAR will become another mechanised battalion. The 2000 White Paper stated the Australian Army is expected to operate 6 full time Infantry battalion groups.

It currently operates 5 with 4RAR having fully converted to being a Special Operations Unit, no longer capable of operating as an infantry battalion. I would guess that a new battalion would be formed, possibly by de-linking 5/7 RAR. With Robert HILL as Defence Minister Adelaide is a definite prospect for this new battalion.

In order for this battalion to be located there though, supporting assets such as Armour (tanks) armoured recon units (ASLAV's) artillery, engineering and other support assets would have to be co-located with it. This would mean that 1 Brigade would end up divided between Darwin and Adelaide and could only realistically come together for large scale exercises due to the cost involved.

My opinion would be to raise another battalion by de-linking 5/7RAR and base it in Darwin where the support assets already ARE. This together with additional supporting assets, (a new battery within 8/12 Medium Regt for instance) would insure that 1 Brigade would actually be brought up to full strength as a Mechanised Brigade and then John Howard could ACTUALLY stand in front of the NATO commander and announce we could deploy a Mechanised Brigade on ops, without him laughing...

If the battalion was created, additional M113AS3/4 would need to be acquired to equip said battalion Additional support weapons such as 81mm mortars, Carl Gustav 84mm and Javelin ATGW would be required. A new 155mm Artillery battery (as part of 8/12 Medium Regt) would be required to support this Battalion and additional logistic and combat support elements would be required within 1 Brigade.

It would not be a cheap exercise, however would provide a great enhancement to our current combat capability. Once it was achieved and 7 Brigade has finished upgrading (Bushmaster IMV's, ASLAV's new 155mm artillery) means we would have the option of deploying a light air mobile brigade, (3rd Brigade) a medium weight motorised brigade (7th Brigade) or a "heavy" mechanised brigade (1 Brigade) on ops... Something that Army Commanders have been dreaming of for years...
 

cherry

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
So would this new battalion come from recruiting new personnel or simply from within by reorganising the force structure? Why would addtional M113 be upgraded to operate within this new battalion? Given the poor level of protection these vehicles provide for troops, wouldn't a purchase of something along the lines of upgraded Bradley IFV from the US be a better solution to providing a higher protected mechanised force with more fire power? Or even a combination of Bradleys and the new EFV from the US?


How many additional vehicles would be required to establish a new mechanised battalion?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The most likely way a new mechanised Battalion would be created in my opinion would be to "de-link" 5/7 RAR, ie: 2 rifle companies and half the battalion headquarters and support units would be renamed as a new battlion giving 1 Brigade 2 battalions named as 5 RAR and 7 RAR.

Both battalions would then be re-strengthened with fresh troops from other units and new "recruits" and equipment. This process would probably take 12 - 18 months all up to fully establish both battalions and train them up to an operational level, but it would be worth it for the greater combat capability gained therein...

This process was successfully used in the mid 90's when 2/4 RAR was split up and the battalions became 2RAR and 4RAR. 2RAR remained one of the high readiness battalions within 3 Brigade (as part of the Ready Deployment Force) and 4RAR became a light infantry battalion for a period before converting to the Special Operations capable, Commando Unit it has now become.

Upgraded M113's, redesignated as M113AS3 or M113AS4's are to become the standard APC for the Australian Army. Project Land 106 (M113 upgrade) has been running for about 8 years now and is in inital low rate production at the moment.

This project at present is to upgrade 350 M113 vehicles for the Army and will finally see newly upgraded M113's delivered to the first unit (B Squadron 3/4 Cavalry Regiment) in 2006, with 5/7 RAR and the rest of 1 Brigade equipped later with the project due for completion around 2008.

The money has mostly already been spent on this program and M113's will remain the sole tracked APC/IFV for the army until around 2020 when Land 400 will replace the M113/ASLAV armoured vehicle families. Yes Bradley or something would be better, but we're simply not going to get it.

The M113AS3/4's actually won't be a bad vehicle with the armour and mobility aspects of the vehicle equal too or greater than Bradley's. It's the firepower issue that is of greater concern to me (and others) with the firepower of the new vehicles to actually be less than that of existing vehicles...

If a new mech battalion is created within the army additional M113 vehicles will need to be upgraded to equip it. About 110 - 120 M113's of various models would be required to equip a new battalion, depending on the manning levels of the unit.

The 350 current vehicles are going to B Squadron 3/4 Cav Regt, 5/7 RAR, support units within 1 Brigade (including 1 Armoured Regt, 1 Combat Engineer Regt and 1 Combat Services Support Battalion ie: MP's, etc) the School of Armour and the Land Warfare Development Centre.
 

cherry

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Isn't it funny that the Army is trying to "harden" their forces yet they have downgraded the fire power of the M113 or simply chosen not to opt for more fire power. Are they locked into the turret design proposed for the upgraded M113 or is there an option to fit the same turrets as the ASLAV with the 25mm canon? Seems to me that this is somewhat of a contradiction. If what you say is true about the higher levels of armour for the new M113AS3/4 than the Bradleys then perhaps they will be a better choice. But I still beleive that a purchase of around 40-60 expeditionary fighting vehicles is needed to mix into certain battalions to provide a bit more flexibility in operations. These vehicles could operate from our new amphib vessels and provide more protection to our troops for beach landings. They could also be configured to provide an armoured supply vehicle. What are your thoughts?????
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The problem with the choice of a new vehicle is that the Army uses big section sizes than other Army's. Bradley for instance can only carry 6 or 7 troops in the back of the vehicle. The Australian Army has 9 troops in it's sections. This sounds like a trivial thing to modify but our Land Warfare doctrine and tactics are based on our section sizes upwards.

The Government is not locked into the turrets. They could modify them or replace them with a similar turret to the one used on ASLAV (they're even made in Adelaide...) But they don't want to spend the money it would cost. The current turrets are already paid for and the 0.50Cal quick change barrel machine guns have already been acquired (and indeed are already fitted to our M113AS1's)...

Even adding a 40mm automatic grenade launcher (Mk 19 or equivalent) would probably provide a sufficient boost in firepower and could still use the same turret, but the Government simply won't pay for it. Maybe it will under Phase 2 of Land 40 though, but I doubt it...

The M113's armour is being approved with additional "applique armour" and is supposed to be effective to the level of light cannon and light anti-armour weapons (RPG) and light anti-tank mines and can be applied in 3 levels. This is what is meant when it is compaed to the armour on Bradley's.

An amphibious assault vehicle would be a good enhancement to our amphibious capability and would probably be suited to equipping B Squadron 3/4 Cav Regt, as 3 brigade would probably be the unit involved in any such operations, but again the business case is the hard thing to justify. The Government deliberately limits the capability of the ADF to save money. It would argue that through current projects the Australian Army will already be receiving "900" high quality armoured vehicles over the next few years.

Rather than yet another limited armoured vehicle purchase, I'd argue that greater capability would be gained from additional purchases of the existing armoured vehicles on order. An extra 40 - 60 APCS's of a new type would provide greater capability, but would it exceed that of the additional M1A1's that could be purchased? Or even additional ASLAV's, Bushmasters or M113AS3/4's? I doubt it...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
cherry said:
But I still beleive that a purchase of around 40-60 expeditionary fighting vehicles is needed to mix into certain battalions to provide a bit more flexibility in operations. These vehicles could operate from our new amphib vessels and provide more protection to our troops for beach landings. They could also be configured to provide an armoured supply vehicle. What are your thoughts?????
what do you see as an EFV?
 
Top