t68
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering that too, was hoping AD or Raven could answer if they could.
I believe there's merit in a modified Beersheba structure centred on combined arms battlegroups but before drawing up hypothetical TO&Es the logic and reasoning needs to be clearly identified. A restructure of this magnitude would likely be as significant as the creation of the RAR post-WW2, just look at the UK and the politics surrounding the loss of hat badges as an example.
The Russians have adopted Battalion Tactical Groups and their reasons for doing so are worth understanding and considering. The experience gained by commanders operating with a combined arms force day-to-day instead of relying on temporary battlegroups seems to be the primary one.
Would have thought it would be significant - in the range of an additional 5000.
The support brigades would need to be expanded first I would have thought. They need to be able to support the readiness cycle as well.
Examples might include:
+ 16 brigade moving to 3 identical regiments - squadron attack helicopters, company lift assault helicopters, battery lift Chinook
+ GBAD to 3 batteries
+ 20th regiment expanded to have 3 deployable target acquisition units (may already be the case - don't know)
+ When HIMARS acquired - acquiring a decent level of capability - at least a full regiment (3 batteries of 6 launchers each) - suspect would be part of 6th Brigade
This is without fully equipping the brigades themselves.
+ Armoured engineering
+ Cavalry scouts (unless it has been decided that full-time cavalry scouts are no longer relevant)
etc etc
Just some thoughts.
Massive
I was just reading up on NORFORCE. I think it is a great idea, and should maybe be extended, perhaps used as a stepping stone for indigenous men to join the regular Army, as they dont have many other employment opportunites, do they? They make up about 40% of Norforce, I take it as Army Reserve. Perhaps they could be encouraged to join the Regular Army Norforce. What does everyone think?
I'm sorry, but the defence force is currently pushing a vast and inclusive entry employment plan for indigenous Australians. I know you didn't mean anything bad, but the truth is the current ADF does try really hard to recruit indigenous men and women. Nevertheless NORFORCE is a very good use of the naturally talented men and women.
I dont know why you are sorry Hazdog. That to my mind is an excellent program. But what I had in mind was more for the indigenous people who dont want to be shifted all over the country and the world but would be able to stay in the top end. From my understanding there are three sections of Northforce, one in W.A., one in N.T. and one in North Qld. They each have Army Reserve mainly Indigenous, and regular Army people. My idea is for Indigenous soldiers to serve across the three sections as full time Regular soldiers. They could do some of their training in the top end, and short bursts in the Southern states. If coming from the Army Reserve they would surely have some training already..
As you would be aware there is not much employment in the Top End, especially away from the population centres.
As you would be aware there is not much employment in the Top End, especially away from the population centres.
All good Mate, Good thinking, I was just saying that their are good programs to recruit. Your plan seems to be viable.
I'm sorry I missed this discussion, but I was away on holiday in Shoalwater Bay.
The Australian Army has excellent combat teams and very good battle groups, but we suck at brigade level. Really bad. The latest Talisman Sabre (as with all the others) showed that we have a long way to go to be good at formation level. That is where we should be placing our priority - getting better at formation level, not creeping back into the easy comfort of battle groups. The future is integration of joint and coalition assets and effects, and that can only happen at formation level.
Plan Beersheeba is not dead. The central tenant of Plan Beersheeba was three alike brigades, able to rotate as part of the force generation cycle. That hasn't changed. It's worth pointing out that the original Beersheeba construct wasn't supposed to the end state - all it did is take what the Army had at the time and divide it by three. The orbat was always supposed to continue to be developed, which is what is happening now.
Leaving aside the force generation and task organisation issues with this construct (which others have highlighted), this would be a giant, enormous step backwards. Simply huge.
The Australian Army has excellent combat teams and very good battle groups, but we suck at brigade level. Really bad. The latest Talisman Sabre (as with all the others) showed that we have a long way to go to be good at formation level. That is where we should be placing our priority - getting better at formation level, not creeping back into the easy comfort of battle groups. The future is integration of joint and coalition assets and effects, and that can only happen at formation level.
Without labouring the point, there is a lot more to a brigade than two battlegroups deployed together. You have to integrate all the assets and effects from 6 Bde, and 16 Bde, and 17 Bde, plus joint and coalition assets. You need a brigade JFECC and a TACP and about a dozen other addons to a formation HQ. The only way to be good at this is to train for it all the time. Having permanent battlegroups at the expense of brigades would obviously not achieve this.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
I wonder how likely it is that Australia would ever deploy a whole Army Brigade?
Personally I think it is highly unlikely. It will be a very rare event where a whole 4000 person Brigade is deployed. (Perhaps a 5000 person force with the attached Aviation, MP, Electronic Warfare,Air Defence, Special Forces, etc etc elements.)
Much more realistic is that a Battalion group is sent to whatever contingency arises.
I am not saying that it would never happen but the chances of that occurring are much less than the chances of a smaller force being sent.
So why not form and train as you are more likely to deploy?
If you are more likely to deploy a battalion with support from Armour, Artillery etc why not form units constructed along those lines.
You are missing the point. You don't need to send a full reinforced brigade on ops to need all the effects a brigade brings to the table. Brigade level is where all the effects from the larger army are integrated, as are joint and coalition effects - a BG has essentially zero ability to do that. Even if we only sent a single BG as the ground combat element on ops, there would still need to be a HQ on top of them to do all the that. There's no point us developing extra capabilities like EW, HIMARS, GBAD/CRAM, cyber etc if we have no ability to integrate them, because there are no formation HQs.
That's all without discussing the inefficiency of permanently task organised units such as the one you describe. How often is the contingency going to require exactly the orbat you outlined? What happens if we need more tanks? Or no tanks at all? Or we need armoured breaching assets? Or due to the long lines of communication we need more TTFs/TTWs etc for the CSST? That is the whole point of the Beersheeba brigade. It allows you to task organise as required for the contingency.
Australia needs more focus on brigades, not less.
Nope
The usual - mainly just a big dog and pony show. There were lots of toys to play with though, which was nice. It didn't even rain, which was a big change from the last time I was at Shoalwater Bay. It was a lot of expense and effort for five and a half days of simulated combat.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Yes there would be formation HQs. Each Battalion Group would have a dedicated Command Element above the infantry battalion, artillery battery, armoured unit etc. The same way a USMC MEU has a Company sized Command Element.
How does a MEU incorporate joint and coalition effects? How does a MEU integrate EW, HIMARS, GBAD/CRAM, cyber etc? I presume it is possible for a MEU to do this.
A Beersheba Brigade is a task organised unit.
How often is the contingency going to require the exact orbat of a Beersheba Brigade? Rarely, so you adapt your unit to the requirement as a Battalion based group would.
I am not sure I understand your point here Raven. If you need more tanks add more tanks from another battalion Group. If you don't need tanks leave them at home. How is that related to the size of your primary formation? Why would it be easier for a Battalion group deployed from a Brigade to leave tanks behind than for an independent Battalion Group to leave it's tanks behind? I just don't understand that.
Sorry Raven I don't know what TTFs/TTWs are.
But whatever they are, if you need more add them.
I think I was misunderstanding you. You aren't talking about a battlegroup, you are talking about a (US) regimental sized organisation, that sits somewhere between a battalion and a brigade. The pentomic/pentropic organisation re-invented. That invalidates some of my points about the need for a formation HQ, but the force generation and task organisation points remain valid.
You compared your battle groups to a USMC MEU. It is important to understand that MEUs are not standing formations. The HQ element is permanent, but everything is is simply attached from other various other standing formations. The infantry battalion will come from an infantry regiment, the gun battery will come from an artillery regiment, the tank platoon from a tank battalion etc etc. They come together, train for six months, deploy for six months, and then are released back to their parent formations. It is exactly the same as the way that Australia generates the ARE/ARU/ARG (other than the fact that the marines deploy at the end of the training, where as we just sit on our packs ready to go).
The point is, the USMC still use in barracks organisations (in their case, the division instead of the brigade) to conduct force generation, and then task organise for deployment. That is exactly the same concept we use now to generate our forces.
You compared your battle groups to a USMC MEU. It is important to understand that MEUs are not standing formations. The HQ element is permanent, but everything is is simply attached from other various other standing formations. The infantry battalion will come from an infantry regiment, the gun battery will come from an artillery regiment, the tank platoon from a tank battalion etc etc. They come together, train for six months, deploy for six months, and then are released back to their parent formations. It is exactly the same as the way that Australia generates the ARE/ARU/ARG (other than the fact that the marines deploy at the end of the training, where as we just sit on our packs ready to go).
The point is, the USMC still use in barracks organisations (in their case, the division instead of the brigade) to conduct force generation, and then task organise for deployment. That is exactly the same concept we use now to generate our forces.
A Beersheeba brigade is NOT a task organised unit. It has been deliberately designed to be an in barracks organisation for the conduct of force generation, so the various components can be task organised into battle groups as required. The point is, it contains all the unit-sized components of the combined arms teams. Need a mechanised infantry battlegroup for some warfighting? Sorted. Need an engineer battlegroup for some reconstruction task? Sorted. The fact that Beersheeba brigades exist demonstrated that we are focusing on the battlegroup, just task organised battlegroups. If we were worried about fighting with brigades, we'd be organised into a divisional construct instead of independent brigades.
No, you can't do that, as you don't have any higher HQ to draw them from. How, for example, would you create proper tank squadrons if each battle group only has nine tanks? Where does the SHQ come from? The A1? The HTTs to move them all around? If we need more than one squadron of tanks, who commands them? There is no regimental HQ in the Army to do that. You could have a collection of nine-tank capability bricks all answering to the infantry battalion HQ, but that is not the same thing at all. The Army is more than collections of equipment. You can't just throw three tank troops together and pretend you have a squadron, any more than you can throw two or three battlegroups together and pretend you have a brigade.
Add them from where? You have no CSSB to draw them from. You could add more first line support from another of your battlegroups, but that is not the same thing.
t68
Well-Known Member
Raven,
Been awhile since I was in basicly understand CSSB is as they where just moving over to new structure, just not sure if the TTFs/TTWs you are referring is the same as I was in.
But am assuming with the CSSB reference your referring to Truck Tanker Fuel/ Truck Tanker Water
Thought it was just easier to remember line transport as in 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th line transport
Been awhile since I was in basicly understand CSSB is as they where just moving over to new structure, just not sure if the TTFs/TTWs you are referring is the same as I was in.
But am assuming with the CSSB reference your referring to Truck Tanker Fuel/ Truck Tanker Water
Thought it was just easier to remember line transport as in 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th line transport
Mark your probably correct in that there is a higher chance of deploying a company or battalion sized force over a bigger formation.
However a brigade sized force for a nation of our size is not unrealistic and suggest appropriate for our strategic outlook.
As to its composition well I see more benefits with a brigade centric structure than a lot of specialised battalions acting independently of each other.
While I do confess to not been that enthusiastic about the new structure of a dedicated APC and PMV battalion within the Brigade I can still see some benefits as well. The cynic in me feels its more for economics rather than as an ideal Brigade structure. Non the less Plan Beersheba gives Government many options that can be sustained both over time at a reasonable sized level.
I would suspect If such a brigade sized commitment was called upon money would be found and it would be tailored to the task at hand over time.
Having a functioning Brigade structure and culture will adapt to such a need much better than independent battalion sized groups.
While I cannot predict the future I am mindful that the Geo / political can change very quickly and that often requires an immediate response.
We should remember what defence planners expectation were in 1913,38 49,65,98.
Who knows what we may need next month yet alone next year. We all hope for peace but a cohesive well trained multi role Brigade is much better than a gaggle of battalions.
Thanks for you input
Regards S
Just caught a few seconds of the news, and it looks like the AMV35 has won land 400, with the old holden plant to be used to manufacture them.
the road runner
Active Member
I think the news is just stating "IF" BAE win they will build the AMV in the old Holden factory in Melbourne
If the Boxer wins it will be built in Queensland
Defence contractor to build 225 combat vehicles in Melbourne if it wins $5 billion contract