Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bluey 006]

A landing force is not just going to appear with no warning. Transit time from anywhere except Indonesia and PNG to Australia is measured in weeks, not hours, and it would not take anywhere near that time to move the assets forward. Certainly, an air-landed force could do it more rapidly, but does anyone honestly think the Australian mainland is likely to be invaded? And without any serious deterioration in our relations with the potential invader to give warning?

Never said the landing had to be in Australia. Hypothetically, it could be any "unnamed" island or area in our region or further North- Northwest. There are any number of places in the Indo-Pacific that are in Australia's strategic interest to defend. Many of those are not that far from potential launch areas, for aggressors. Thus, rapid deployment could be necessary to avoid said aggressor gaining a foothold.

You wouldn't even directly oppose a landing in most of Northern Australia, cut the highways, cut the supply lines and the Outback will do the rest for you. It is amongst the most hostile environments to humans in the world. You need to bring in everything by sea or air and its a very long way from anywhere.

Who is to say they want to go further south or to the east coast? As we enter a time when major demographic shifts are happening, population densities are bulging, and rapid climate change is a wildcard. Perhaps carving out a small piece of land in pristine but sparely populated area of the northern Australian mainland to call their own is all they want. For many populations around the world, this could look very attractive.

 

[Redlands18]

Never said the landing had to be in Australia. Hypothetically, it could be any "unnamed" island or area in our region or further North- Northwest. There are any number of places in the Indo-Pacific that are in Australia's strategic interest to defend. Many of those are not that far from potential launch areas, for aggressors. Thus, rapid deployment could be necessary to avoid said aggressor gaining a foothold.




Who is to say they want to go further south or to the east coast? As we enter a time when major demographic shifts are happening, population densities are bulging, and rapid climate change is a wildcard. Perhaps carving out a small piece of land in pristine but sparely populated area of the northern Australian mainland to call their own is all they want. For many populations around the world, this could look very attractive.

Because everything and I mean everything would have to be brought in by ship or air from 1000s of ks away. 50 degrees in the Dry season and 35 degrees, 90% humidity and monsoon weather in the wet season. There is no living off the land up there for anything close to a decent population. And everything up there wants to kill and or eat you.
Pristine? That only lasts as long as the supplies you carry with you last. Northern Australia kills fools very quickly.

 

[Armchair]

Never said the landing had to be in Australia. Hypothetically, it could be any "unnamed" island or area in our region or further North- Northwest. There are any number of places in the Indo-Pacific that are in Australia's strategic interest to defend. Many of those are not that far from potential launch areas, for aggressors. Thus, rapid deployment could be necessary to avoid said aggressor gaining a foothold.

Who is to say they want to go further south or to the east coast? As we enter a time when major demographic shifts are happening, population densities are bulging, and rapid climate change is a wildcard. Perhaps carving out a small piece of land in pristine but sparely populated area of the northern Australian mainland to call their own is all they want. For many populations around the world, this could look very attractive.

This is the issue that inspired me to join the forum (so people who are already sick of me going on about corvette building times can blame you).

I am glad you are talking about opposing off shore landings for HIMARS and NASAMS. I think the basing of the fires brigade in Adelaide is sound. So far as I understand they will be based at Edinburgh airbase. The equipment involves light and medium trucks that can be transported on C 17 and C130 that can fly to Adelaide to pick them up. In utter desperation those same trucks could drive themselves to Sydney, Brisbane or Townsville or Darwin to load for sea lift.

they would be very high priorities for airlift. In time terms they are probably closer to Townsville than SAS troopers in Perth, special forces helicopters in Sydney or battlefield helicopters in Brisbane.

in terms of how HIMARS would be used I saw this after I read your original post. Apologies if it has been posted earlier.

Australia developing ‘shoot and scoot’ capability using C-130s and rocket artillery

With plans to purchase the US-made expeditionary rocket system known as HIMARS, Australia wants to turn its C-130 cargo transports into a long-range precision strike system.

www.flightglobal.com

Warning: Disrespectful and unprofessional. Don't blame other members for things you do, I grant you free will. Spread peace, logic and understanding, don't set fire to other members. This isn't reddit or 4chan.

 

[Bob53]

This is the issue that inspired me to join the forum (so people who are already sick of me going on about corvette building times can blame you).

I am glad you are talking about opposing off shore landings for HIMARS and NASAMS. I think the basing of the fires brigade in Adelaide is sound. So far as I understand they will be based at Edinburgh airbase. The equipment involves light and medium trucks that can be transported on C 17 and C130 that can fly to Adelaide to pick them up. In utter desperation those same trucks could drive themselves to Sydney, Brisbane or Townsville or Darwin to load for sea lift.

they would be very high priorities for airlift. In time terms they are probably closer to Townsville than SAS troopers in Perth, special forces helicopters in Sydney or battlefield helicopters in Brisbane.

in terms of how HIMARS would be used I saw this after I read your original post. Apologies if it has been posted earlier.

Australia developing ‘shoot and scoot’ capability using C-130s and rocket artillery

With plans to purchase the US-made expeditionary rocket system known as HIMARS, Australia wants to turn its C-130 cargo transports into a long-range precision strike system.

www.flightglobal.com

I can’t see it myself. Landing a herc within 50kms of an enemy force? Herc is a big slow moving target that would pop up in most radars. If the enemy hasn’t got any Air cover or Air Defence’s fine. Why bother taking off…just bring more missiles. If they have air defences at all this mission won’t happen.

 

[Redlands18]

I can’t see it myself. Landing a herc within 50kms of an enemy force? Herc is a big slow moving target that would pop up in most radars. If the enemy hasn’t got any Air cover or Air Defence’s fine. Why bother taking off…just bring more missiles. If they have air defences at all this mission won’t happen.

Pretty sure the enemy would also know the location of any airfields capable of landing a C-130, the moment they detected any incoming they will have a pretty good idea of where the HIMARS are located.

 

[Armchair]

I can’t see it myself. Landing a herc within 50kms of an enemy force? Herc is a big slow moving target that would pop up in most radars. If the enemy hasn’t got any Air cover or Air Defence’s fine. Why bother taking off…just bring more missiles. If they have air defences at all this mission won’t happen.

The missiles might have a substantially longer range than 50km but let’s assume the mission involves flying close (e.g, within 50km) to enemy forces with missiles.

The airfield and the flight path of the c130 might be adequately protected (e.g., by a NASAMS previously deployed and the RAAF and RAN). There will be other ADF forces who need to get even closer than 50km. They would welcome having ground based missiles on their team too but they are probably at greater risk than the c130.

c130s also drop paratroopers (commando in Australia’s case) and may or may not have modifications for SF insertion. Some of those missions involve flying close to enemy forces (e.g. to destroy missile batteries) too. If the enemy has adequate air defences that mission
doesn‘t happen but …

Ground based Radars are biggish slow moving targets and the ADF has Growlers and F-35s and is acquiring lots of land attack missiles (some of which might be fired at the missile defences by the HIMARS before it takes off to get closer.

Even if the radars survive the air defences might have higher priority targets than a C130 (e.g. the jet or helicopter or drone attacking them now rather than the ATACMS hitting someone else in an hour’s time).

if the attack is not successful or it is a diversion then being able to remove the HIMARS or rapidly deploy somewhere else sounds pretty useful.

Finally perhaps the risky c130 mission never happens at all. The possibility that a HIMARS could be deployed on the next island‘s airfield however, could cause a potential adversary to redesign forces or abandon missions (“They could get ATACMS there! That’s right next to my planned command post with the lagoon views. OK we need an aircraft carrier for this job … but what about those pesky Collins class subs. Yeah, let’s not bother”). Or force a real adversary to disperse forces, capture and hold more islands that might be next to more islands with airfields.

All that aside, I was using the article to illustrate the air mobility of HIMARS and how the ADF might train with them. I should have quoted that specific part of Bluey 006‘s post to make that clear.

 

[Bluey 006]

This is the issue that inspired me to join the forum (so people who are already sick of me going on about corvette building times can blame you).]

Your spamming of this forum has nothing to do with me and trying to attribute this to me demonstrates a level of immaturity, that suggests perhaps you are not ready to join a vibrant, mature defence community designed for healthy debate, sharing of knowledge, and creative/critical thinking. This level of maturity is also clearly evident in the way you write.

Even the odd outlandish idea is not a bad thing, as sometimes career professionals can have their thinking limited by the environment they are in. These outlandish ideas can sometimes stimulate different trains of thought, which is a good thing to solve the many challenges we face.

Even some light banter is welcomed.

I would also encourage you to not just think outside the box but remove it entirely. But do so in a respectful and articulate manner with reasoned arguments. Take some time to read and research the full picture of the issues at play, read between the lines and then present some original ideas not just regurgitated older posts. This forum and its predecessors have been running for a long time. Sometimes you will get it right, if not you’ll be corrected.

I might also direct you to the forum rules

The sheer volume of posts you have done in the short time since joining suggests maybe you are trying too hard. Take some to read, think about and understand what some of the professionals (defence or otherwise) are saying. There are a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum from all sectors. Have you heard the phrase "two ears and one mouth.".



The huge challenges the world faces require new ideas multi-discipline approaches, and learnings from experiences across a variety of sectors. All contributions are welcome. Ego and arrogance are not.

I am glad you are talking about opposing off shore landings for HIMARS and NASAMS.

Please actually, properly read and understand what I wrote.

I think the basing of the fires brigade in Adelaide is sound.

I bet you do.

they would be very high priorities for airlift.

Indeed, so you are suggesting in a time-critical emergency our limited C130s fly backwards from Richmond to Adelaide, then another 5-12 hours, rather than direct from Richmond to Brisbane and then 3- 8 hours?

Absolutely understand the missile ranges are in SA but the live firing of missiles doesn't happen often. Missiles are expensive.

While being integrated, sure fine put them in Adelaide, but long-term IMHO they are better placed further North, Especially the NASAMS, not expecting an air attack in Adelaide any time soon.

in terms of how HIMARS would be used I saw this after I read your original post. Apologies if it has been posted earlier.

Australia developing ‘shoot and scoot’ capability using C-130s and rocket artillery

With plans to purchase the US-made expeditionary rocket system known as HIMARS, Australia wants to turn its C-130 cargo transports into a long-range precision strike system.

www.flightglobal.com

We are aware of how HIMARS is used but what are the target sets that require GMLRS, that can't be neutralized by other effects? and where do you expect to deploy them?

 

[old faithful]

The missiles might have a substantially longer range than 50km but let’s assume the mission involves flying close (e.g, within 50km) to enemy forces with missiles.

The airfield and the flight path of the c130 might be adequately protected (e.g., by a NASAMS previously deployed and the RAAF and RAN). There will be other ADF forces who need to get even closer than 50km. They would welcome having ground based missiles on their team too but they are probably at greater risk than the c130.

c130s also drop paratroopers (commando in Australia’s case) and may or may not have modifications for SF insertion. Some of those missions involve flying close to enemy forces (e.g. to destroy missile batteries) too. If the enemy has adequate air defences that mission
doesn‘t happen but …

Ground based Radars are biggish slow moving targets and the ADF has Growlers and F-35s and is acquiring lots of land attack missiles (some of which might be fired at the missile defences by the HIMARS before it takes off to get closer.

Even if the radars survive the air defences might have higher priority targets than a C130 (e.g. the jet or helicopter or drone attacking them now rather than the ATACMS hitting someone else in an hour’s time).

if the attack is not successful or it is a diversion then being able to remove the HIMARS or rapidly deploy somewhere else sounds pretty useful.

Finally perhaps the risky c130 mission never happens at all. The possibility that a HIMARS could be deployed on the next island‘s airfield however, could cause a potential adversary to redesign forces or abandon missions (“They could get ATACMS there! That’s right next to my planned command post with the lagoon views. OK we need an aircraft carrier for this job … but what about those pesky Collins class subs. Yeah, let’s not bother”). Or force a real adversary to disperse forces, capture and hold more islands that might be next to more islands with airfields.

All that aside, I was using the article to illustrate the air mobility of HIMARS and how the ADF might train with them. I should have quoted that specific part of Bluey 006‘s post to make that clear.

As an ex paratrooper, you clearly have a very limited idea on how parachute operations take place.
1st of all. The DZ. Drop Zone. The DZ is never the target. The target could be hundreds of kms from the DZ.
2nd. There is always a DZ reccy, done by SF and ISR.
3rd. There are alternate DZs if the primary becomes "hot".
4th. The C130s will have fighter escorts, always.
There just too many points to make here. The shoot and scoot idea for the HIMARs is pretty much an SF operation in itself, and a pretty unlikely one at that. While it could be possible with very long range munitions.

 

[Takao]

My (non-expert) view is the army has designed three useful combat brigades and a fires brigade (located in the right places in view of available bases) given the hand dealt to them by govt and the tasks set for them (deter aggression by demonstrating a capacity to project force off shore in the region).

Useful for what? Beersheba had many issues from an execution point of view, but the basis of giving everyone in the Army familiarity with all capabilities was a very good one. A deployed JTF could draw on 1, 3 and 7 Bde for the force - what does the new JTF do? And deterrence? That, quite frankly, is a load of baloney.

The problem I see is that there is that if the single mechanised (3rd) brigade were to be committed somewhere there is no capacity to relieve or reinforce it (there aren’t any tanks, ifvs, or spgs anywhere else in the army to create a mechanised battle group) or to send a mechanised battle group to deal with any other contingency.

I guess the real solution would be to hope that, if deployed, the 3rd Brigade could be relieved by an allied armoured brigade but to be a credible deterrent it seems to me that either 7th Brigade (and/or army reserve) needs a minimal mechanised capability (even having some apc modules for Boxers could help) or the units in 3rd Brigade need more companies and squadrons than they would deploy (I guess that is likely to be true given limited sea lift and escort capacity).

So...not useful? And not a deterrence?

in terms of how HIMARS would be used I saw this after I read your original post. Apologies if it has been posted earlier.

Australia developing ‘shoot and scoot’ capability using C-130s and rocket artillery

With plans to purchase the US-made expeditionary rocket system known as HIMARS, Australia wants to turn its C-130 cargo transports into a long-range precision strike system.

www.flightglobal.com

Yeah - that's a joke. I know where it came from, but it's a joke. It's a simplistic idea that falls over the first time you wargame it. If you want trans-regional mobile missiles then I have the solution for you already: an FFG or DDG. You want to risk a C-130 to shoot 6x GMLRS or 1x ATACMS? The brutal truth is for all the talk of strategic strike - the vast majority of HIMARS fire tasks will be to directly support the Bde or Div effort. The majority of the rest will be against key GBAD sites and nodes to aid RAAF operations. All of which has a Bde in the field; much more than the C-130 can carry.

While being integrated, sure fine put them in Adelaide, but long-term IMHO they are better placed further North, Especially the NASAMS, not expecting an air attack in Adelaide any time soon.

This misses the point. In addition to ranges, the other benefit of Adelaide is civilisation. I love Darwin, done a couple of postings there. I can't move there at the moment, between schools and spousal employment there are no real options. This pile in on Townsville is not going to be popular - can Townsville even begin to meet the demands that are about to be put on it? In addition, the weather up there prevents land exercises for 4 - 6 months a year; even if you don't shoot the ranges in SA are more useful (also for an Mech Bde too...)

 

[protoplasm]

If you want trans-regional mobile missiles then I have the solution for you already: an FFG or DDG.

This is actually the point. If you want to move large missiles to the islands to our north and northwest, and be able to protect them whilst deployed, there is already a developed system to do this. It’s a warship, large enough to have all the capabilities needed for long range strike. The pollies just need to have enough guts to get over the sticker shock and decide to build them.

 

[Volkodav]

Useful for what? Beersheba had many issues from an execution point of view, but the basis of giving everyone in the Army familiarity with all capabilities was a very good one. A deployed JTF could draw on 1, 3 and 7 Bde for the force - what does the new JTF do? And deterrence? That, quite frankly, is a load of baloney.



So...not useful? And not a deterrence?



Yeah - that's a joke. I know where it came from, but it's a joke. It's a simplistic idea that falls over the first time you wargame it. If you want trans-regional mobile missiles then I have the solution for you already: an FFG or DDG. You want to risk a C-130 to shoot 6x GMLRS or 1x ATACMS? The brutal truth is for all the talk of strategic strike - the vast majority of HIMARS fire tasks will be to directly support the Bde or Div effort. The majority of the rest will be against key GBAD sites and nodes to aid RAAF operations. All of which has a Bde in the field; much more than the C-130 can carry.



This misses the point. In addition to ranges, the other benefit of Adelaide is civilisation. I love Darwin, done a couple of postings there. I can't move there at the moment, between schools and spousal employment there are no real options. This pile in on Townsville is not going to be popular - can Townsville even begin to meet the demands that are about to be put on it? In addition, the weather up there prevents land exercises for 4 - 6 months a year; even if you don't shoot the ranges in SA are more useful (also for an Mech Bde too...)

Spot on as usual.

Kym Beazley made an interesting point recently in a Defence Connect Podcast.

He made the point that Australia's forward defence policy was one built around participation rather than capability. It led to over investment in forces suitable for deployment in coalition operations, as well as niche capabilities, again, suited to coalition operations rather than holistic defence.

Basically we ended up with rotatable, deployable force, heavy on transport, but low on any capability to actually protect or defend the transport capability.

We are still doing that. Those deployable land based littoral fires will need to be flown or floated to their positions. In what version of reality are we going to be able to do that without them being destroyed, in part or full, enroute?

 

[Takao]

This is actually the point. If you want to move large missiles to the islands to our north and northwest, and be able to protect them whilst deployed, there is already a developed system to do this. It’s a warship, large enough to have all the capabilities needed for long range strike. The pollies just need to have enough guts to get over the sticker shock and decide to build them.

But wait, it gets better.

As focused as many are on major war, the reality is that the ADF has many missions outside that, fairly narrow, area. Australia also spends more time at peace than war. Meaning said tasks occur much more frequently.

One key task is the non-warlike, diplomatic and constabulary tasks of the RAN. Navies carry so much more peacetime tasks than the other two Services and always have. Which means that buying additional FFG and DDG makes those tasks easier! And makes them more cost effective. You can buy all the MLRS you want - hell, buy 35k of them and give every soldier and Army officer one. You'll still need FFG/DDG...

 

[Armchair]

Your spamming of this forum has nothing to do with me and trying to attribute this to me demonstrates a level of immaturity, that suggests perhaps you are not ready to join a vibrant, mature defence community designed for healthy debate, sharing of knowledge, and creative/critical thinking. This level of maturity is also clearly evident in the way you write.

Even the odd outlandish idea is not a bad thing, as sometimes career professionals can have their thinking limited by the environment they are in. These outlandish ideas can sometimes stimulate different trains of thought, which is a good thing to solve the many challenges we face.

Even some light banter is welcomed.

I would also encourage you to not just think outside the box but remove it entirely. But do so in a respectful and articulate manner with reasoned arguments. Take some time to read and research the full picture of the issues at play, read between the lines and then present some original ideas not just regurgitated older posts. This forum and its predecessors have been running for a long time. Sometimes you will get it right, if not you’ll be corrected.

I might also direct you to the forum rules

The sheer volume of posts you have done in the short time since joining suggests maybe you are trying too hard. Take some to read, think about and understand what some of the professionals (defence or otherwise) are saying. There are a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum from all sectors. Have you heard the phrase "two ears and one mouth.".



The huge challenges the world faces require new ideas multi-discipline approaches, and learnings from experiences across a variety of sectors. All contributions are welcome. Ego and arrogance are not.



Please actually, properly read and understand what I wrote.



I bet you do.



Indeed, so you are suggesting in a time-critical emergency our limited C130s fly backwards from Richmond to Adelaide, then another 5-12 hours, rather than direct from Richmond to Brisbane and then 3- 8 hours?

Absolutely understand the missile ranges are in SA but the live firing of missiles doesn't happen often. Missiles are expensive.

While being integrated, sure fine put them in Adelaide, but long-term IMHO they are better placed further North, Especially the NASAMS, not expecting an air attack in Adelaide any time soon.



We are aware of how HIMARS is used but what are the target sets that require GMLRS, that can't be neutralized by other effects? and where do you expect to deploy them?

I think much of the content in your post contains matters you would be better raising with a moderator.
Blaming you was an attempt at humour. Apologies for that.
Would you like me to offer answers to the questions you posed to me?

 

[Takao]

We are still doing that. Those deployable land based littoral fires will need to be flow, or floated to their positions. In what version of reality are we going to be able to do that without them being destroyed, in part or full, enroute?

Leahy was a massive advocate for SEA4000 because it gave the RAN an air defence capability it had lost with the retirement of the Perth Class. He would speak to us about his support for DDGs would allow the (then new and sparkly) LHD to deploy, meaning the Army could go do its job. A CA who understood the needs of the Joint Force and the Land Force.

That seems to have gone. Now we casually toss out about how a Bde will do littoral efforts with our (why our and not RAN?) landing craft. The new heavies will rival the old LSDs for size! We would never have suggested HMAS Kanimbla deploy by herself against any reasonable threat (and reasonable is so much more - Hezbollah had LBASM in the 00s!) but we will do that now? Huh?

The brutal reality is that, if we are going against a capable (not just peer) threat, our amphib forces will need FFG and DDG escorts. And not one or two, but possibly up to 8 - 10. Look at USS Carney, she used 11 SAMs. Add in submarines and air forces.... I think the idea of an Army landing ship (why?!) diddly bopping around the Indo-Pacific region by itself is laughable at best - and manslaughter at worst.

 

[Armchair]

Useful for what? Beersheba had many issues from an execution point of view, but the basis of giving everyone in the Army familiarity with all capabilities was a very good one. A deployed JTF could draw on 1, 3 and 7 Bde for the force - what does the new JTF do? And deterrence? That, quite frankly, is a load of baloney.

So...not useful? And not a deterrence?

I don’t think any of the brigades function as a deterrent if they can’t be transported and protected by RAN and RAAF ( your point below) which is why I have sought (ad nauseam apparently) views here on whether the RAN can acquire additional escorts.

I probably meant something closer to usable than useful. I don’t understand how a Beersheba or Keogh brigade could fight anything much at all ( but understand from your previous posts that they would be reinforced). I can imagine that 3rd Brigade could be usable in a massive conflict and 7th Brigade at INTERFET level.

 

[Volkodav]

Leahy was a massive advocate for SEA4000 because it gave the RAN an air defence capability it had lost with the retirement of the Perth Class. He would speak to us about his support for DDGs would allow the (then new and sparkly) LHD to deploy, meaning the Army could go do its job. A CA who understood the needs of the Joint Force and the Land Force.

That seems to have gone. Now we casually toss out about how a Bde will do littoral efforts with our (why our and not RAN?) landing craft. The new heavies will rival the old LSDs for size! We would never have suggested HMAS Kanimbla deploy by herself against any reasonable threat (and reasonable is so much more - Hezbollah had LBASM in the 00s!) but we will do that now? Huh?

The brutal reality is that, if we are going against a capable (not just peer) threat, our amphib forces will need FFG and DDG escorts. And not one or two, but possibly up to 8 - 10. Look at USS Carney, she used 11 SAMs. Add in submarines and air forces.... I think the idea of an Army landing ship (why?!) diddly bopping around the Indo-Pacific region by itself is laughable at best - and manslaughter at worst.

That's the thing many forget, it doesn't matter how good individual capabilities are if they don't live to reach the battlefield.

This should be at the front of every commanders mind, will the supporting capabilities, needed to keep them alive, be available.

 

[OldTex]

I don’t think any of the brigades function as a deterrent if they can’t be transported and protected by RAN and RAAF ( your point below) which is why I have sought (ad nauseam apparently) views here on whether the RAN can acquire additional escorts.

I probably meant something closer to usable than useful. I don’t understand how a Beersheba or Keogh brigade could fight anything much at all ( but understand from your previous posts that they would be reinforced). I can imagine that 3rd Brigade could be usable in a massive conflict and 7th Brigade at INTERFET level.

The thing with conflicts of any size is that they require prolonged application of effort. While Plans Beersheba and Keogh had issues they provided the basis for the Australian Army to provide a sustained level of effort. With the 'new' structure of single dedicated brigades there is no ability to provide a significant level of effort over an extended period. The 'new' mechanised 3 Bde will be able to provide a mechanised BG for about 12 months. If the whole Bde is committed to a major conflict then once it is used up there is nothing to replace it (basically one flash and it is done). There is nothing that can be used to raise and train its replacement.

The reality is that the Australian Army must operate as part of a coalition force for an extended period of time in a conflict. Also there will be other tasks that the GoTD will require the Army (and the other services as well) to engage in because of their unique capabilities and organisation.

 

[StobieWan]

Late to the party here but if you wanted to use C130 to deploy HIMARS, why bother? Acquire Rapid Dragon and do the launch direct from the aircraft, at standoff range and go home, reload, repeat.

 

[spoz]

There is this issue, you see.

Ships and aircraft can’t take and hold land, you need boots on the ground.

Ships and troops can’t respond rapidly to threats emerging at a distance; for that you need aircraft.

Aircraft and troops can’t provide persistent armed presence at a distance without host nation support, for that you need ships.

Oh, so what you need is a joint force, capable of providing mutual support, able to communicate and understanding in general terms the doctrine across the battle space.

We might not have enough of any of it, but that sounds like the balanced force the ADF used to be aiming at. Unbalance one bit of that, and at some point you are likely to get bitten.

 

[Armchair]

The thing with conflicts of any size is that they require prolonged application of effort. While Plans Beersheba and Keogh had issues they provided the basis for the Australian Army to provide a sustained level of effort. With the 'new' structure of single dedicated brigades there is no ability to provide a significant level of effort over an extended period. The 'new' mechanised 3 Bde will be able to provide a mechanised BG for about 12 months. If the whole Bde is committed to a major conflict then once it is used up there is nothing to replace it (basically one flash and it is done). There is nothing that can be used to raise and train its replacement.

The reality is that the Australian Army must operate as part of a coalition force for an extended period of time in a conflict. Also there will be other tasks that the GoTD will require the Army (and the other services as well) to engage in because of their unique capabilities and organisation.

Agreed. That was the concern I expressed in my very first post. The two saving graces I see are that 1. if the whole of 7th Brigade were committed (E.g, for peacekeeping/ building) then (at least so far as the equipment on the army‘s infographic suggests) that 3rd Brigade could generate battle groups to reinforce It (even if that is not the intended function). 2. The unbalanced force is less suitable for generating forces for governments to deploy in intractable conflicts outside Australia’s region (savings in economic and direct DVA mental health costs would pay for a lot of IFVs).