great! the veggies will be running around with tipped steyers yelling out "bang".

 

It is official, no additional support units are being raised to support the new combat units planned under the HNA.
There will be 11 battle groups but only sufficient support for 6. i.e. 5 battle groups will have to make do without artillery, combat engineer, and combat service support.

Ref DIAR.com

ELF is about getting more "boots on the ground".

The rest can catch up later.

The number of battalions has always been a political issue for some reason. No-one in politics cares (publicly) that each battalion requires dedicated combat support assets to be a functional unit and in reality the lack of supporting units is only an issue in a "DoA" scenario where ALL regular units will have to engage in combat operations simultaneously.

Is this anymore realistic today than it was in 1987 when Dibb came up with the strategic idea of DoA operations?

For now, the battalions can deploy as inidividual units or deploy sub-units to be supported by existing assets. IF bigger deployments come along, support assets can be increased just as they already have been since Timor.

Fact is Army is adjusting itself to be capable of deploying combat teams to the full spectrum of operations.

In 2012 Army will (for instance) be capable of deploying a battlegroup comprised of a mechanised infantry battalion, a tank squadron, a Cav Squadron, an artillery battery, a combat engineer squadron, an armed recon helicopter troop, and air defence troop, a TUAV troop, a surveillance and target acquisition troop and the necessary combat support elements to support such a force at any level of warfare.

This is what General Leahy is talking about when he refers to HNA. Such a force equipped as it will be with M1A1, M113AS3/4, enhanced ASLAV, Bushmaster, Tiger ARH, enhanced RBS-70, I-View, the new SPG's, Javelin etc will possess more combat power than Army has ever possessed before. Even taking into account the relative level of capabilities throughout the ages. 

Light and light motorised forces with similar support capabilities will also be able to be generated by Army, but in larger numbers.

I agree, that Army needs to do more. However the level of force structure changes, the new capability acquisitions and the current operations need to be managed before Army can legitimately consider expanding beyond what has already been announced.

This is why I am not overly concerned by "limited" acquisitions such as 59x M1A1's, 22x Tiger ARH or 18-24 self propelled guns for Artillery. Army has NEVER possessed such high level capabilities. Let's get it while we can, get it into service and THEN worry about whether it's sufficient or not...

Well said. A thoughtful and considered response.

Trev

The irony is that the support elements are where the reserves can really make a difference, the average support job having far more in common with civilian employment than any combat role, with the exception of artillery of course.  But for logistics, RAE, RAEME, Medical etc why not raise deployable reserve units. 

 

As the guys and girls will have civie quals equal of better than the military equivalent plus work place experience to back it up they could spend most their reserve training time doing small unit tactics etc. plus an annual trade test to make sure the base skills were still up to date.

 

Thoughts?

Thanks mate.

I find it amazing the changes in equipment that Army is getting and people still aren't happy. God, there was a time when I would have been ecstatic to get a new piece of equipment. In my 6 years in Army, the units I served in didn't receive a single piece of new kit that I ever saw.

I remember one exercise my Regiment was involved with (circa 1999) where we had 1 single pair of night vision goggles to cover the entire Regiment. My troop got to use them in an OP on one particular night of the exercise and that was it. Back to looking "slightly off centre" at any objects.... :)

The changes now are simply unbelievable.

Unfortunately I think that the thing that seems to have been missed in all the discussions on this issue is the training liability involved for the different corps involved. the NTL for an arms corps member i.e. Infantry of Armoured is between 6-12 months to get a soldier through basic training then their IET training and to serving in a unit. Compare this to at least 3 years to get a RAEME soldier into a unit and being productive with out specialist equipment skills. HNA/ELF has raised an additional mechanised battalion but cut the 2nd line support manning by 60 pers. So with an already stretched maintenance organisation we increase the liability but reduce the manning.

I agree that this is all about getting more "boots on the ground" but that comes with a support cost and if you?re unwilling to plan for it and just let it "catch up later" it shows no forethought or an appreciation of how to best service the units. Additionally these are the final figures there will be no catching up for the supporting elements because this is what we are going to have. While on the comment of catch up later i find this comment incredible, would you go into battle keep pushing forward saying that the support can catch up later. All this new equipment and capability if fantastic and a quantum lea forward but it all comes with a liability of support which due to the culture of the Australian Army many are not willing to, or (which is far worse) just have not considered.

If the Army is serious about HNA shouldn't a Well Armed IFV be in the mix? M113 is a bit of a battle taxi...

Volkodav,

 

What's this about 11 battle groups? The last time I heard they were raising a two extra battalions for a total of 8 regular battalions. Are you including some sort of high-readyness reserve element?

 

AD,

 

I generally agree with you that "boots on the ground" are the most important thing for the types of operations that we are currently undertaking. Generally the peace keeping/peace enforcement efforts in our region require a lot of light infantry supported by smaller cavalry/aviation elements to transport a ready reaction force if things get sticky. The gunners aren't generally needed in their actual role in our region and for our biggest recent deployment, Timor, were required to patrol as infantry. We also don't have a lot of call for ongoing land-mine disposal or demolitions work and I'd imagine that the initial deployment of engineers can get the infrastructure that the grunts need to do their job in at the beginning of an op, then leave. We could still deploy a battalion/brigade group into a higher intensity theatre with the support elements that we have, while maintaining low intensity ops in the region. As such I think that  raising extra battalions without those support elements is a good way to use our limited manpower.

 

However, I question how they will get by very well without expansions to the combat support battalions. Any operation requires ongoing transport, logistics, repaid, health and signals support. Do the existing CSB's have the capacity to provide ongoing support to those extra battalions on long operations? If not I'd fear that we would be flogging our pogues to death and adversely affecting their moral.

 

 

 

 

What's this about 11 battle groups? The last time I heard they were raising a two extra battalions for a total of 8 regular battalions. Are you including some sort of high-readyness reserve element?

I can see where Sol is coming from having completed both a traditional trade and tertiary studies (never ending!). 

 

The trade definitely taught me a greater level of useful, adaptable and above all transportable skills than either of my two completed or one in progress tertiary qualifications have.  The trade also took longer in terms of actual hours, involved a steeper learning curve but has also provided me with a base on which I have built all of my other skills.

 

To put it simply it takes far longer to earn a trade and become a proficient tradesman than it does to do almost anything else.  Look for instance at the latter years of medical training, it is more like an apprenticeship than school, with the one on one or small group mentoring, extensive practical work and on the job training. 

 

In a way a peace time army would perhaps be better served by having a larger number of tradesmen and technicians than warriors as the warriors are easier and faster to train.

 

However we are not at peace so the army has to do the best they can to balance their force structure.  Both to provide sufficient boots on the ground and to ensure we have enough of the right people to support them in the field as well as to maintain all the shiny new toys the army is getting.

LAND 400 hasn't even passed First Pass approval yet and with the change of Government and it's well known interest in resourcing Army, I wouldn't hold my breath either...

I believe they are at request for information stage.  Seeing what is out there and how it might fit with HNA.  I know KMW are pushing both the Boxer and Puma very hard.

Perhaps they could manage an M113AS5/6 in 15-20 years? :(