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?
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?