Australian Army to increase by 2,600

mickk

New Member
2600 would equal about 600 frontline troops.

10,000 would be more like it, but we musnt upset the Indonesians.

We should have taken in the entire Ghurkah regiment when it was disbanded.

We need 2 more Infantry regiments and 2 more cavalry regiments, another commando regiment, two more SAS regiments just to keep up.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
2600 would equal about 600 frontline troops.

10,000 would be more like it, but we musnt upset the Indonesians.

We should have taken in the entire Ghurkah regiment when it was disbanded.

We need 2 more Infantry regiments and 2 more cavalry regiments, another commando regiment, two more SAS regiments just to keep up.
With whom? The Americans? Another world war I don't know about? with support and required lift thats at least 12000 men and women. Don't disagree about the Ghurkah regiment though, those guys are fearless.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
2600 would equal about 600 frontline troops.

10,000 would be more like it, but we musnt upset the Indonesians.

We should have taken in the entire Ghurkah regiment when it was disbanded.

We need 2 more Infantry regiments and 2 more cavalry regiments, another commando regiment, two more SAS regiments just to keep up.
We got 10,000 Chinese students years ago, but I don';t think many got to recruitment stage :)
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Contingency for rapid forces expansion

Just curious...is there a contingency to rapidly expand ADF IF the really worst case scenario happens?
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Just curious...is there a contingency to rapidly expand ADF IF the really worst case scenario happens?
Ooh interesting I hadn't thought about that, hmm speculation time
I don't think they could be to rapid, first would be full call up of reservists, that would take a lot of training and supply capicity, perhaps as you are speaking worst case, then a Home defence milita would be formed, a rifle, camo shirt and a pair of boots + a shovel, basic military tactics etc 12 months should be enough to exploit at least a good percentage of:
Fit For Military Service
males age 16-49: 4,092,717
females age 16-49: 3,983,447 (2005 est.)
(Cia world factbook)

Of course alot of thoes would stay in place for key industries, though you have the 5.1% unemployed that could be pressed in to service, its not like they have anything better to do, those not fit for infantry could be used in the Civil Construction corps in order to build defences.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Just curious...is there a contingency to rapidly expand ADF IF the really worst case scenario happens?
The 16x reserve battalions would be made operational for a start. Some could be split in 2 and with National Service re-introduced and a call-up of persons with recent military experience we could create a force roughly 3 times the size of our present one within 12 months I'd say...

For Navy and RAAF they'd concentrate on bringing back in staff that have recently resigned to bolster the force.

I see few ways of rapidly increasing size and combat power of RAAF/RAN...
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Those who have served in past 5 maybe 10 years as well, hell theres a big number going on recent reports of shortages
More then likely Civil Accrediated Tradesmen, engineers would be brought straight in. Ie, Electricians, Mechanical Engineers, truckies, mainly support positions really, cops would be good to go to MPs, cooks etc, it might be in a folder in the Chiefs offices for Emergency plans. RAAF would see Qantas staff,pilots, mechanics, who will have little else to do soon, cept join a 5.1% stat thrown in.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
I think I might have a look at the 1939 histories again

One problem though is that equipment is a bit more sophisticated these days. Its not a matter of producing a whole lot of 303s and Lewis guns (I think thats what the diggers had at the time).

At the time all the football fields became battalion camps
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Armoured Engineering Support

Are the Aussies planning to buy additional engineering and bridging systems to compliment the M1A1's? The reason I ask is I note the Brit's are in the process of introducing BAE TERRIER (Manoeuvre Support Vehicle - tracked) TITAN (Bridging armoured vehicle) and TROJAN (Armoured Engineering Vehicle) to support Challenger 2 Battle Tanks in a hostile environment.

Do the Aussie's use Leopard 1 versions of the above, and if so, will they be replaced with a common M1AI derivative?
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Are the Aussies planning to buy additional engineering and bridging systems to compliment the M1A1's?
Even the US Army doesn't have enough AVLBs on M1 chassis! We may be better off building owr own superstructure on a modified second-hand chassis. After all, how many would we need for 59 [81] tanks?
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Govt approves stage one of army plan

Thursday Dec 7 16:58 AEDT
The federal government has given the go-ahead for stage one of its plan to expand the army.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson announced that an additional infantry battalion would be raised in 2007, have core capabilities in place by 2008 and be deployable by 2010.
"The implementation of stage one of the Enhanced Land Force includes concurrent facility design and development for both stages and the acquisition of over 100 Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicles," he said in a statement.
"This will bring the size of the Bushmaster fleet of vehicles to more than 400 vehicles."
The new unit will be formed from the Darwin-based mechanised 5/7 Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment (5/7RAR) which will be split, with the new 7RAR relocating to Adelaide.
In August, Prime Minister John Howard outlined plans for the army to gain 2,600 extra soldiers under an 11-year, $10 billion plan designed to prepare the defence force to intervene in more failing states in an increasingly unstable region.
Dr Nelson said under the Enhanced Land Force Plan, a second battalion, 8/9RAR will also be raised.
That will bring the total army strength to eight battalions - two mechanised, five light infantry and one commando.
©AAP 2006
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
It's welcome new that the planned expansion is starting. What I wonder is if the two mechanized battalions mentioned are actually mechanized, or are they more motorized? I tend to consider a Bushmaster IMV equipped unit motorized but not mechanized.

Also, has the ADF given any thought to expanding the role & use of the Reserves? I'm thinking along the lines of the U.S. National Guard, or at least what that had originally been created for. Something similar to the Commonwealth Militia Forces that saw service in New Guinea in WWII, but with regular training on current equipment. Having such an enlarged formation, specifically setup for operations in Australian or allied territories only, could allow more dedicated expeditionary forces to be created. Possibly something made up of volunteers like the AIF.

I'm interested to hear what people think.

-Cheers
 

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It's welcome new that the planned expansion is starting. What I wonder is if the two mechanized battalions mentioned are actually mechanized, or are they more motorized? I tend to consider a Bushmaster IMV equipped unit motorized but not mechanized.
No they are properly mechanised, the Bushmasters are there in a support role. The actual combat APCs are the upgraded M113 AS3/4s. They are not proper IFVs by any stretch and we may see a purchase of a proper IFV soon to either augment or replace the M113s, but nothing formally has been announced. Just lots of behind the scenes muttering, especially since the new M113s are quite limited in capabilities (only armed with a .50 cal, poorly armoured and not equipped with a thermal sight, only an image intensifier).

Also, has the ADF given any thought to expanding the role & use of the Reserves? I'm thinking along the lines of the U.S. National Guard, or at least what that had originally been created for. Something similar to the Commonwealth Militia Forces that saw service in New Guinea in WWII, but with regular training on current equipment. Having such an enlarged formation, specifically setup for operations in Australian or allied territories only, could allow more dedicated expeditionary forces to be created. Possibly something made up of volunteers like the AIF.
Yes, there has been an ever-increasing push to expand the role and use of the Reserves since 9/11. The catchword the politicians and senior officers like to use is that the Reserve is a "use it or lose it" capability.

If you look back to the 1990s, the Reserves never did anything much except train (in a rather half-arsed manner) for high-intensity war in Australia. The change since then has been quite amazing. The Reserves provide the bulk of the forces to operations in the Solomon Islands, a substantial force of the recent deployment to Timor was made of up reservists, and most of the forces provided for navy patrols in Australia's EEZ are reserves as well.

Basically the ADF has recognised that, with the huge strain on the regular army due to the pace of operations, the Reserve offers a good capability for the 'low end' operations like Timor and the Solomons, which frees up the regular battalions for the high end ops like Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition the army is just about to launch a new "High Readiness Reserve" category which will provide a series of Reserve company groups on high readiness, as the name suggests. These formations will in theory be able to slot straight into a regular battalion deployment and serve alongside them anywhere. Fairly attractive incentives are being offered to attract recruits from the general reserve into the HRR.

It's the ultimate evolution of the reserve forces. It remains to be seen how it will work, but the trials in Timor and the Solomons have been successful so there's no reason why it won't work, except for lack of recruits. When I came back to my reserve unit from my Solomons deployment, there was hardly anyone parading on Tuesday nights at all - they were all on operations!
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
No they are properly mechanised, the Bushmasters are there in a support role.
Any unit moves at the speed of the slowest element, and Bushmasters don't go where M113 goes. That makes the units that use them motorised.


Yes, there has been an ever-increasing push to expand the role and use of the Reserves since 9/11. The catchword the politicians and senior officers like to use is that the Reserve is a "use it or lose it" capability.

If you look back to the 1990s...
Are you saying Reserves are combat ready?

If you look back to before 1914 most Australians knew how to fire a weapon :)
What about if you look forward to 2015?
 

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Any unit moves at the speed of the slowest element, and Bushmasters don't go where M113 goes. That makes the units that use them motorised.
Not at all. Few mechanised formations are ENTIRELY tracked, they all rely on a heavy proportion of wheeled B-echelon vehicles, trucks, jeeps and so on. These battalions will have logistics M113s which can supply the tracked vehicles, but also armoured Bushmasters to fill the gap between tracked APCs and unarmoured B-ech.

Are you saying Reserves are combat ready?
Not combat ready, no - but operationally ready for certain deployments, yes. Some of these deployments have resulted in contacts, too. Usually these don't reach the papers.

The HRR's endstate will involve combat-ready units (at least, as combat-ready as any ARA company) but as I said, we'll have to wait and see whether that works out or not. I believe the HRR is due to be launched in early 2007.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Not at all. Few mechanised formations are ENTIRELY tracked, they all rely on a heavy proportion of wheeled B-echelon vehicles, trucks, jeeps and so on. These battalions will have logistics M113s which can supply the tracked vehicles, but also armoured Bushmasters to fill the gap between tracked APCs and unarmoured B-ech.
So what kind of 'support' role for Bushmasters are we talking about?

To me an armoured vehicle, even if in support role, is used in combat support. 'Logistics' M113s are used to provide support to units whle these are engaged in combat or combat related operations. Hence why they provide modicum of protection to its crews, and allow traction with greater terrain capability then a Unimog.
The Bushmaster is not built for anything other then transporting troops.
 

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
So what kind of 'support' role for Bushmasters are we talking about?
Okay, we'll have to get some confirmation from a third party but this was my understanding of the role of Bushmasters in 1 Bde:

In the mechanised battalions, APCs will provide the infantry transport, which can include actually taking them into battle, fighting alongside them, providing fire support and so on. There will also be recovery/fitter and logistics M113s.

The Bushmasters will not be primarily troop-carrier variants but the special variants - command, ambulance, logistics and for carrying the second-line troops such as RAEME support. Their purpose is to allow these elements to keep pace with the APCs and still provide some sort of protection against shell fragments and small arms fire. Part of the "hardening the army" concept - currently these roles are carried out by unarmoured Mogs and 6x6 Perenties, even in 5/7RAR, the mechanised battalion.

This latest announcement was for 100 extra Bushmasters, though, which would mean 50 per mech battalion (if indeed they are all for the mech battalions). So I don't know what the breakdown of those is. I'll keep an eye out and see if any more info pops up, and maybe someone else can shed some light on it.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
In the mechanised battalions, APCs will provide the infantry transport, which can include actually taking them into battle, fighting alongside them, providing fire support and so on. There will also be recovery/fitter and logistics M113s.

The Bushmasters will not be primarily troop-carrier variants but the special variants - command, ambulance, logistics and for carrying the second-line troops such as RAEME support. Their purpose is to allow these elements to keep pace with the APCs and still provide some sort of protection against shell fragments and small arms fire. Part of the "hardening the army" concept - currently these roles are carried out by unarmoured Mogs and 6x6 Perenties, even in 5/7RAR, the mechanised battalion.
Undoubtedly in some terrains and scenarios the Bushmasters CAN keep up with the tracked vehicles. They are also undoubtedly an improvement on the basic truck.

However, consider that the M113s are expected to work with the M1s :)
The Bushmaster is a misnomer because it can not go to ANY bush. It is very good when applied to convoy duty for example which may include limited off-road travel.

The real mechanisation will come with the Land400 design which will replace M113 and ASLAV. The reserves will get the Bushmaster for less demanding service roles which do not require all-terrrain or anti-armour combat capability.

What that design will be is another story :)
 
Top