For the record I would like to point out that 10 pages later there had been a single post that substantively dealt with the thread subject through a lengthy quote from Paul Dibb's report.
So how are they going to do it? Manpower Defence Group has had recruitment contract for years, but has failed dismally in improving recruitment.
Adding 2,600 doesn't actually state the problem.
The problem is that the Australian Army is undergoing a change it had not been through since the 60s. The reason - we are at war.
2,600 is not solely for raising 3 battalions. That is the stated objective, but this number is wanted over and above the annual recruiting targets which have not been met for years (correct me if I'm wrong).
Having a "hardened, networked" Army is a bit more complicated then recruiting 3 extra battalions. 60% of the ADF's budget is spent on technology which requires a science degree to operate (or training to that effect) which means a retention of AT LEAST 8 years (4 years to train=investment; 4 years to contribute to use=return on investment). In fact it seems to me the actual return would be after 7 years because that is a single technology use cycle for a given system. Of course some systems, like the Leopards, have been around for a lot longer, so any service personnel recruited to service the M-1, and TWO are required for each tank over and above the crew, need to be ideally retained for at least 30 years.
Hoping for a turn-down in the economy doesn't help the Army. It may be true that recruiting escalates during higher level of unemployment, but this is only because the less skilled people seek an easy way out from unemployment. These people usually lack enough initiative to find work, so the Army faces a real job by not only training them to be riflemen, the least technologically challenging work in the Army, but to imbue them with sense of purpose and initiative - qualities often missing in the 'techos'. Has anyone ever tried changing a human being at 18-24 years of age while putting them through basic training? It seems to me the Training command NCOs should all get some sort of public recognition.
So in fact EVEN IF the Army is only looking to recruit 2,600 OVER AND ABOVE annual replacement needs to form three battalions, in fact they are looking to recruit far more because there is a rate of induction failure. Does anyone know what that is in Australia? In the US Army 15% fail basic training. This means we are looking for about 3,000 recruits.
How long does it take to make a great digger? In wartime, not so long, but in a war when only 600 are rotated through relatively 'safe' AOs (until Afghanistan), a lot longer. In general, in peace time, it takes at least 3 years to make an infantryman, and 6 to make a professional infantryman. How many NCOs will retire each of those 6 years and be replaced by longer-serving privates and be required to be replaced by new recruits? From memory I think its about 2% of the NCOs. However with raising of new units this means that MORE NCOs need to be created, and therefore more replacement recruits. each full battalion is 700 individuals for a total of 2100 for the three. Not all are infantrymen, but it seems to me about 80% are privates. Of course these will not be all raw recruits. Privates from existing units will form a skeleton for each of the new battalions to give it the 'moral fibre' of a formation.
Then there are officers. Each battalion needs about 30 officers at least. The Army is already missing quite a number of mid-grade officers, so finding an even 100 will not be so easy because many contribute to proper development of the very projects that have been discussed here and can not really be replaced through civilian recruitment. This means that of the remaining 590 recruits (2,600 - 2,010) 100 need to go to ADFA. Of these 100, 90 need to want to be Infantry Corps officers, therefore male, fit, and with the appropriate attitude of an infantry officer (not a 'techo' specialist in logistics, electronics or catering).
What of the 490 remaining recruits? Well, to enable the Army to support three extra battalions, the Army needs to provide them with all sorts of extra-battalion support. In modern armies this is usually at a rate of 1 service support recruit for every 2 combat recruits. The Red Army during WW2 got by with 1:3. Ordinarily this would mean that for 2,100 Regulars there would need to be 1,050 support recruits.
However they are the DIGGERS!!! Each Ozzy digger can do the job of two Russians never mind Americans
And if cricket is anything to go by, then it’s 12 Poms to one retiring Corporal
So HOW is the Army going to do this? Is there a plan, a tactic, a method, or technology? And mind you, we are alone with this dilemma because we have neither the population size of the US, nor the willingness to serve of the UK. Australia will get some Kiwis and Islanders in the recruitment drive, but not enough to matter.
Comments/ suggestions? :type
Cheers
Greg
