Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Massive]

My 2 cents on the optimal Beersheba brigade would be:

ACR: 3 Cav squadron, 2 tank squadron
Mech inf battalion: 4 companies
Mot inf: 3 companies
Arty: 2 SPG battery, 1 towed battery
Eng. 2 composite armoured, 1 composite mot. squadron

Can't see us getting a 4th brigade but this would give a lot of flexibility - note that it does add 9 manoeuvre elements (effectively another brigade worth).

Regards,

Massive

 

[ADMk2]

OMG!!!!

2RAR is half way there.

Split 8/9.

10 billion, I'm sorry , I don't believe it would cost 10 bil to add 2 more Bns to the orbat.
2 more mech Bns, maybe.
As for state of eadyness, 1 BN at high state, on 12 month rotation. Aka 1 and 2/4 in the 80,s , it was called the ODF then.
Taking a mech BN away from their cars that they have been training with, to get up to standard and making them a light inf BN is not that easy.
They won't be going through LWC or Tully.
We have 10 chinooks, 40 odd nh 90,s and still 20 odd blackhawks for now.
Light infantry could continue to train that way.
2RAR as it stands , 1 rifle coy and support units can not be used as a BN, and really seems more like a training aid for the RAN and Army ATM.
Any way, it seems that this discussion is going no where, so I'll pull out now.
I just think that we are going to lose a fair bit of flexibility with this plan.
I'm not convinced that this plan will go the distance either. We will most likely have a change in Govt soon, with less $ available for defence.
Huge amounts of $ wasted on the Submarine plan for Navy, and I fear its going to cost much more than planned.
So I'll just shut up now.

Thinking this and thinking that is wonderful. Unfortunately the cold hard reality is that $10b figure WAS the funding figure for the Enhanced Land Force which was designed primarily to expand the land force by two extra battalions, plus add the requisite enablers.

Neither 7RAR OR 8/9RAR raised under ELF, were mech battalions...

 

[old faithful]

Thinking this and thinking that is wonderful. Unfortunately the cold hard reality is that $10b figure WAS the funding figure for the Enhanced Land Force which was designed primarily to expand the land force by two extra battalions, plus add the requisite enablers.

Neither 7RAR OR 8/9RAR raised under ELF, were mech battalions...

That money would have to include building barracks at woodside and god knows what ever else.
$10 billion for 2 Bns, sorry. I'm not buying that. I would need to see the breakdown. 10 billion over haow many years? Including wages for 10 years +....

 

[t68]

Yep some big bucks for infrastructure $793.1m. I imagine a lot of that would have to been don eventually anyway as you can't keep putting members in old dipulated housing forever.

Enhanced land force stage 1 facilities

My mobile won't down load the link don't know why

 

[t68]

for the above

http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary...url=pwc/enhancedlandforce/report/chapter2.pdf

 

[t68]

for the above

http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary...url=pwc/enhancedlandforce/report/chapter2.pdf

 

[ADMk2]

That money would have to include building barracks at woodside and god knows what ever else.
$10 billion for 2 Bns, sorry. I'm not buying that. I would need to see the breakdown. 10 billion over haow many years? Including wages for 10 years +....

Of course it does, exactly as it would additional new battalions. Army isn’t going to house them all under hootchies...

 

[old faithful]

Of course it does, exactly as it would additional new battalions. Army isn’t going to house them all under hootchies...

So let's say they spend $1 mil a man, a BN, equipment, barracks, say 1 BN.
Say it cost 5 bil, I do not believe your $10 bil bill.

 

[old faithful]

So let's say they spend $1 mil a man, a BN, equipment, barracks, say 1 BN.
Say it cost 5 bil, I do not believe your $10 bil bill.

According to the link posted by t68, the ADF spent $793 mill on relocation of 3RAR, 7 RAR, upgrading of the bases, including RAAF Richmond, the 793 mil included re raising 8/9 RAR.
Your 10billion is a bit out.

 

[old faithful]

I've got to say, that the tone you blokes are taking with people on this forum has become very arrogant. This has happend more and more over the last few years.

 

[old faithful]

Of course it does, exactly as it would additional new battalions. Army isn’t going to house them all under hootchies...

10 bnn is approx 1/3 of the entire defence budget......for 2 Bns AD?
Cmon mate......

 

[ADMk2]

10 bnn is approx 1/3 of the entire defence budget......for 2 Bns AD?
Cmon mate......

Continue with your hypotheticals all day mate. I am simply referring to the reality of the situation. Since you evidently prefer deciding things off the top of your head and I prefer a bit of research, here is the original announcement for ELF and what it cost to boost the Army by 2 battalions and the infrastructure and equipment needed to support them.

A Stronger Army: Two More Battalions - 24 August 2006

 

[TheRealist]

Continue with your hypotheticals all day mate. I am simply referring to the reality of the situation. Since you evidently prefer deciding things off the top of your head and I prefer a bit of research, here is the original announcement for ELF and what it cost to boost the Army by 2 battalions and the infrastructure and equipment needed to support them.

A Stronger Army: Two More Battalions - 24 August 2006

The article you're referring to here mentions the first $6B is over a period of 11 years. I assume the remaining $4B is over a similar period. So that would be less than $1 Billion a year. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Raven22]

At the risk of wading into a discussion that has seemingly degenerated into people swinging handbags at each other, it’s worth pointing out that the $10 billion cost is that of the entire Enhanced Land Force initiative over the space of ten years. The extra two battalions was the core of that initiative, but there were lots and lots of other things that came under the title of ELF and were paid for by that $10 billion. Saying it costs ~$5 billion to raise an extra battalion is a bit disingenuous.

However, people are expensive, and the vast majority of that price tag is caught up in personnel costs. The ELF initiative had an extra 2600 soldiers, and the average cost of a soldier is about $250 000 a year. The personnel costs of that extra 2600 personnel alone is about $650 million a year. Obviously, over ten years that is $6.5 billion. It adds up quick.

These very high personnel costs are a good reason why mechanising the army as much as possible is a good thing (and I don’t just mean mechanising as in putting infantry into IFVs, but simply having machines doing a small much as possible at the expense of people). If manpower is our limiting factor, and it is, then doing as much as we can with what we’ve got is the way ahead.

 

[t68]

At the risk of wading into a discussion that has seemingly degenerated into people swinging handbags at each other, it’s worth pointing out that the $10 billion cost is that of the entire Enhanced Land Force initiative over the space of ten years. The extra two battalions was the core of that initiative, but there were lots and lots of other things that came under the title of ELF and were paid for by that $10 billion. Saying it costs ~$5 billion to raise an extra battalion is a bit disingenuous.

However, people are expensive, and the vast majority of that price tag is caught up in personnel costs. The ELF initiative had an extra 2600 soldiers, and the average cost of a soldier is about $250 000 a year. The personnel costs of that extra 2600 personnel alone is about $650 million a year. Obviously, over ten years that is $6.5 billion. It adds up quick.

These very high personnel costs are a good reason why mechanising the army as much as possible is a good thing (and I don’t just mean mechanising as in putting infantry into IFVs, but simply having machines doing a small much as possible at the expense of people). If manpower is our limiting factor, and it is, then doing as much as we can with what we’ve got is the way ahead.

Agree, manpower cost are a considerable strain on the budget but government recoups a lot of that in direct/indirect taxes on flow to the economy as a whole. It's not like there is no return on investment unlike the dole blugers in housing commission and sticking a needle in there arms.

 

[buffy9]

I've been going over a few videos lately about the army (many of which include battle groups) and it had me thinking: what exactly is an army battle group comprised of?

At first I thought it would be built around an infantry battalion with additional elements/companies/squadrons drawn from across the brigade and enabling brigades, though in a number of videos it always seems to be less than this - ranging from roughly 650 soldiers in one video (about 7th Brigade and Battle Group Ram) to 800 for the amphibious force that was utilised in Talisman Sabre 2017. It has got me thinking just how big a battle group is, especially if such a force is to be deployed in an amphibious environment (which 800 would be more ideal for than say 1,800).

 

[Takao]

I've been going over a few videos lately about the army (many of which include battle groups) and it had me thinking: what exactly is an army battle group comprised of?

At first I thought it would be built around an infantry battalion with additional elements/companies/squadrons drawn from across the brigade and enabling brigades, though in a number of videos it always seems to be less than this - ranging from roughly 650 soldiers in one video (about 7th Brigade and Battle Group Ram) to 800 for the amphibious force that was utilised in Talisman Sabre 2017. It has got me thinking just how big a battle group is, especially if such a force is to be deployed in an amphibious environment (which 800 would be more ideal for than say 1,800).

Pretty close actually. A Battlegroup is a task-organised, unit sized organisation of combined arms. Generally built on a Inf Bn HQ or Armd Regt HQ with multiple (2 - 5 usually) combat teams underneath. Will be armour heavy, infantry heavy or square (referring to # of CT within it). Commanded by a LTCOL and normally having 600 - 1000 personnel. Generally speaking, a normal Brigade should be able to generate 3x BG (although there is no question as to the practicality of this), but you will see a Brigade commanding multiple Battlegroups.

[soapbox on]The phrase Battlegroup is getting significantly diluted within Army parlance, now almost meaning anything commanded by a LTCOL. BG Griffin, for instance, has never been a Battlegroup - as there aren't multiple combined arms effects within it. That's the key difference between a unit (6 RAR) and a Battlegroup (BG HEELER).[/soapbox off]

 

[buffy9]

Pretty close actually. A Battlegroup is a task-organised, unit sized organisation of combined arms. Generally built on a Inf Bn HQ or Armd Regt HQ with multiple (2 - 5 usually) combat teams underneath. Will be armour heavy, infantry heavy or square (referring to # of CT within it). Commanded by a LTCOL and normally having 600 - 1000 personnel. Generally speaking, a normal Brigade should be able to generate 3x BG (although there is no question as to the practicality of this), but you will see a Brigade commanding multiple Battlegroups.

[soapbox on]The phrase Battlegroup is getting significantly diluted within Army parlance, now almost meaning anything commanded by a LTCOL. BG Griffin, for instance, has never been a Battlegroup - as there aren't multiple combined arms effects within it. That's the key difference between a unit (6 RAR) and a Battlegroup (BG HEELER).[/soapbox off]

I always assumed that a battlegroup was organised around an infantry battalion (battlegroup being short for something like "battalion group") or an ACR with two ready "battalion groups" operating from each brigade with a reserve "battalion group" also provided on operations as a reinforcing element. The layout described does seem to be smaller, though more flexible than what I had assumed to be in use. An organisation like this would be more useful for operations in the South Pacific where smaller, more tactical units would likely be required to conduct potentially volatile situations - be it a low-intensity peacekeeping mission with a humanitarian aid component; or a mid-intensity intervention.

I'm only junior in this stuff, moving from reserves to regular in the coming months. It will be good to see how this all works in the long-run.

 

[Raven22]

I always assumed that a battlegroup was organised around an infantry battalion (battlegroup being short for something like "battalion group") or an ACR with two ready "battalion groups" operating from each brigade with a reserve "battalion group" also provided on operations as a reinforcing element. The layout described does seem to be smaller, though more flexible than what I had assumed to be in use. An organisation like this would be more useful for operations in the South Pacific where smaller, more tactical units would likely be required to conduct potentially volatile situations - be it a low-intensity peacekeeping mission with a humanitarian aid component; or a mid-intensity intervention.

I'm only junior in this stuff, moving from reserves to regular in the coming months. It will be good to see how this all works in the long-run.

As Takao said, battalion group is an older term and describes a unit that does not include combined arms. For example if you take, say, 1 RAR, add a tank squadron, engineer squadron, cav troop, CSST etc, then you have a battle group. If you just took 1 RAR by themselves and deployed them, maybe just with a few second line logistic enablers etc, then you would have a battalion group.

Without reinforcement, a current brigade can create three weak battle groups or two strong ones. The reinforcing battle group from the reserves is additional to this.

Good luck with the transfer to the regs.

 

[aussienscale]

Just an un-ashamed post for a mate and model making legend for any Aussies that are interested, custom built from scratch Hawkei models

Defence Models and Graphics Pty Ltd

Cheers