Australian Army Discussions and Updates

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
@hairyman Based on what evidence do you make this claim? The reason for the red ink is that this is a very serious allegation to make and requires a serious response, because you are calling into question the qualifications and capabilities of officers of the AFP.

You are required to respond to this and think very carefully about your response.
AFP regularly second Police officers from other states and territories, so will have plenty of experience and expertise to call upon to assist with their own investigators if needed.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
AFP regularly second Police officers from other states and territories, so will have plenty of experience and expertise to call upon to assist with their own investigators if needed.
It’s also not uncommon for Australian Police both State and Federal to call on the FBI for expertise.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Maybe the shame and dishonour that the current and recent members of the Sqn have bought on SASR, previous sqn personnel who served with honour, Army ADF and the nation is enough reason. Can you think of any other time in Aussie Army history when such war crimes have been committed?
Would appear to be, if proven, the same things that Breaker Morant and his colleagues were convicted of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

Takao

The Bunker Group
G’day @Takao

If possible can you elaborate on the above paragraph regarding RAAF Jericho, UAVs, as well as why the F-35 getting more hours will be key for change?
Sorry - was travelling.

At the moment most of our ideas about F-35 are theoretical - especially when we talk about combining them with UAVs. As we fly them more (and get the hours up), the pilots will become more familiar with what the system can and cannot do, expanding to the enablers like E-7A and EF-18G and then combining UAVs when the RAAF get some.

Until you play with a system, you don't really know it's capabilities. This is particularly important in a combined arms force.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
I must admit, I expected the link to that video I posted to generate some comments. Maybe the information is buried too deep. I might summarise some of the information in the video, particularly about the army objective force. As always, the information should be taken with a grain of salt. It is the unclassified version, so not everything is included, a lot is already out of date, and a lot is still in the thought bubble stage, and predates any decisions or funding. However, with COVID having upset the strategic apple cart the way it has, I expect we‘ll see some significant changes happen earlier rather than later.

Some key points from the brief:
- 1 Bde is to be split in two to create a fourth combat brigade. The elements currently in Darwin will remain part of 1 Bde, while those in Adelaide will become part of 9 Bde, forming an integrated (ARES/ARA) brigade. 1 Bde will become a light amphibious brigade, with 4 RAR being re-raised as a mirror of 2 RAR. 9 Bde will become a mech heavy brigade with 1 Armd Regt and 7 RAR, as well as 9 Regt equipped with SPGs and 9 Field Squadron equipped with the L8160 combat engineering vehicles.
- 8 Bde is to become the fires brigade based in Adelaide, with 16 Regt (the GBAD unit with NASAMs), the long range fires regiment and a land based anti ship missile unit.
- A new two star aviation command is to be created, which will command 16 Bde and all aviation elements (including 20 STA with the Shadow UAS replacement). The majority of army aviation will be centralised in a centre of excellence in Townsville.
- Darwin is to become the main watercraft precinct with most of the expanded littoral manoeuvre capability.
- A new health brigade is to be raised, taking all the health units off 17 Bde.
- 6 Bde is to become a more specialised brigade with a ridiculous acronym, and include all sorts of ISR, EW, cyber etc capabilities.
- 13 Bde is to grow to have a more significant capability in the west of the country, including a littoral manoeuvre, artillery and cavalry capability.
- The majority of AFVs are to be prepositioned at Cultana and Shoalwater Bay, to save money on moving them for exercises and improve availability.
- What remains of 2 Div will focus on domestic contingency response.
- 12/40 RTR is to become an RFSU.
- The army is to grow by nearly 5000 personnel over the next couple of decades.
From the above is this correct?

Army will retain three Multi role Combat Brigades:
3 and 7 Brigades will remain as is. All Regular Army.
9 Brigade will become a new Multirole Combat Brigade with 1 AR and 7RAR as regular army units and 10/27th Battalion(reserve) will be the second infantry battalion (presumably in Bushmasters) with 9 Regt as the artillery unit. What happens to A Squadron 3/9th Light Horse?

1 Brigade will be a new type of Brigade for Army, light amphibious with 3 infantry battalions, all of them Regular Army:
2RAR
4RAR (new unit)
5RAR (still in Bushmasters?)
8/12 Regt remains as the artillery unit for 1 Brigade.

13 Brigade will add capability like Artillery/Cavalry but will it be a mixed Regular/Reserve unit?
 

OldTex

Member
The orbat slide shows all that remains of 1 Bde being located in Darwin, 4 RAR being re-raised as a mirror of 2 RAR (as a pre-landing force), and the main watercraft precinct also being located in Darwin. Instead of calling it an amphibious brigade, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the new 1 Bde as a light brigade optimised for littoral manoeuvre. One of the main drivers behind the LCM8 and LCH replacement, as well as the riverine capabiltiy, is to give the Army the ability to manoeuvre in the littoral independent of the RAN amphibious ships located at FBE. This significant aids the agility of the force in both peace and war.
If 1 Bde was to be re-roled as a light brigade optimised for littoral manoeuvre, independent of the RAN amphibious platforms, would suggest a couple of significant changes. Firstly it suggests that the manoeuvre elements would likely be combat team (CT) sized in the main, rather than the battle group (BG) currently in the multirole combat brigades. Secondly, and following on from the former, as a light brigade there would be no requirement for 60+ tonne battle tanks, 30+ tonne CRVs, 40+ tonne IFVs or SPHs. It then raises the questions of how the reconnaissance role would be enabled, how land based manoeuvre would be undertaken and fire support would be effected? It may mean that vehicles like the supacats are used for recce and troop lift and that 120mm mortars become the fire support weapon system.
9 Bde with a single ARA battalion and an ARES battalion would not be a like replacement for 1 Bde as a multirole combat brigade. It may perhaps require the relocation of 5RAR down to Adelaide, rather than being geographically separated (although that is the current situation for 1 Bde anyway). This would leave the light amphibious 1 Bde with 2 ARA battalions on light scales.
All of this is moot anyway as both the Force Structure Plan and the Defence Strategic Update, both released 4-5 years later than the presentation, have given no indication that the proposals in the presentation have been accepted or being implemented.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From the above is this correct?

Army will retain three Multi role Combat Brigades:
3 and 7 Brigades will remain as is. All Regular Army.
9 Brigade will become a new Multirole Combat Brigade with 1 AR and 7RAR as regular army units and 10/27th Battalion(reserve) will be the second infantry battalion (presumably in Bushmasters) with 9 Regt as the artillery unit. What happens to A Squadron 3/9th Light Horse?

1 Brigade will be a new type of Brigade for Army, light amphibious with 3 infantry battalions, all of them Regular Army:
2RAR
4RAR (new unit)
5RAR (still in Bushmasters?)
8/12 Regt remains as the artillery unit for 1 Brigade.

13 Brigade will add capability like Artillery/Cavalry but will it be a mixed Regular/Reserve unit?
As I said, there is only so much you can learn from a single slide in an unclassified presentation.

One thing though, the presentation shows 2 RAR remaining in Townsville, not becoming part of 1 Bde in Darwin
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
All of this is moot anyway as both the Force Structure Plan and the Defence Strategic Update, both released 4-5 years later than the presentation, have given no indication that the proposals in the presentation have been accepted or being implemented.
I think you’ll find the presentation is from August this year, after the release of the Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan. It is, if you like, the Army planning to implement the changes from the FSP (the hint is in the name of the presentation - ‘Army Force Structure Implementation Plan’)
 

hairyman

Member
Sorry for the late reply.
I was involved in a number of homicide investigation in my 30 years in the Vic. Police. I can remember prior to the Federal Police being formed, when it was the Commonwealth Police. Their main duty was the protection of Commonwealth property. When the Federal Police Force was formed, several highly thought of Victorian policemen were poached, and I daresay from the other states as well. They were used to set up the drug portion of the Feds, which as we have seen over the years has done a very good job. However offences of a serious and violent nature, such as homicide and armed robbery etc, were only their responsibility when they occurred in Canberra or on Federal territory, so they had little opportunity to gain experience.
I would not have their job for quids. Can you imagine the amount of political interference they woud get?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I think you’ll find the presentation is from August this year, after the release of the Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan. It is, if you like, the Army planning to implement the changes from the FSP (the hint is in the name of the presentation - ‘Army Force Structure Implementation Plan’)
Will be interesting to see what actually eventuates in this revamp of force structure.

I do confess to a preference of common like brigades in structure.
If new capability's and their associated equipment are to be purchased then accommodating them within the existing brigade structure would seem to make sense.

Long term sustainment of operations should still be the priority, with the ability to ramp up or down from this structure depending upon the timing and size of contingency.

Are we going back to the 1980's?

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry for the late reply.
I was involved in a number of homicide investigation in my 30 years in the Vic. Police. I can remember prior to the Federal Police being formed, when it was the Commonwealth Police. Their main duty was the protection of Commonwealth property. When the Federal Police Force was formed, several highly thought of Victorian policemen were poached, and I daresay from the other states as well. They were used to set up the drug portion of the Feds, which as we have seen over the years has done a very good job. However offences of a serious and violent nature, such as homicide and armed robbery etc, were only their responsibility when they occurred in Canberra or on Federal territory, so they had little opportunity to gain experience.
I would not have their job for quids. Can you imagine the amount of political interference they woud get?
Thank you for your reply and stating your qualifications for the context of your original reply. You will be aware that the AFP were involved in the MH17 shoot down investigation so as other posters have noted do have the capability and if don't will call on expertise from State police forces. So it's not like they are going to be like a bull in a china shop.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thank you for your reply and stating your qualifications for the context of your original reply. You will be aware that the AFP were involved in the MH17 shoot down investigation so as other posters have noted do have the capability and if don't will call on expertise from State police forces. So it's not like they are going to be like a bull in a china shop.
Imagine trying to cross examine an SAS soldier who has been trained in resistance to interrogation
 

hairyman

Member
I suppose the point I was initially trying to make is that Federal police normally dont have violent crimes or criminals to worry about. maybe that has changed somewhat over the years, but I dont see how it could change too much. Anyway I hope whoever does the investigations remember that these young men were sent over to do a job, and whatever happened was in consequence of that. I am sure that in previous wars there were similar events. Lt Calley anyone.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Anyway I hope whoever does the investigations remember that these young men were sent over to do a job, and whatever happened was in consequence of that.
Yeah... no.
There is no mandatory conscription in Australia to the best of my knowledge, so their service was voluntary, and therefore their actions were also voluntary.
I admit I didn't read too much past the headline, but from what I have read it doesn't sound at all like some "I was only following orders" BS which is a completely illegitimate argument in court, by the way.

In Israel we have multiple ongoing conflicts in multiple borders, so obviously the chances and actual rates of crimes and atrocities against innocent civilians is higher than the ADF's.
They only get 1 mitigating factor if someone is found guilty, and that is mandatory service.
You can try a soldier in court for breaking the law like any other citizen. But some of the blame is on the army for putting 18 year old kids in an extremely stressful situation, with a gun, on a daily basis for almost 3 years.
But you don't have that in Australia. Can't possibly make that argument in court.

If a policeman knowingly and intentionally kills a civilian without any reasonable justification, his service as a policeman does not mitigate his sentence.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I believe that the prosecution is one David Mclure. He good, very good. I have first hand experience with this bloke, he is Lt Col in ARes legal. Among other things. He defended the NT govt in a surpreme court case I was a witness in. And won. He was Arty originally but crossed over to SF himself I believe. He is very good and a total professional.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There are still a lot of what if’s, and I know that they don’t excuse murder, but put yourself in their shoes.
I can think of quite a few reasons that SAS might kill an “innocent “ civilian, one being they are not innocent but keep getting away with it through being clever and useing the ROE in a clever way. Others being time restraints, like you have too many prisoners to transport, you either stay until more transport arrives, putting your entire patrol in danger for who knows how long, knowing that you are completely compromised at that point, let the extras go to fight them again another day, or murder them. What would you do? You have seconds to make the call with adrenaline still pumping, you are trained to make a decision, it’s not always the right one, but better than being indecisive.

The link below is the clarification to this post that old faithful has made because someone has complained about this post. At no stage has old faithful condoned extra judicial killings.

Ngatimozart

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top