Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What chance the Defence White Paper will retain 3 RAR in Airborne role?
Volkodav    9/27/2008 11:51:55 PM
It struck me that our special forces are currently being worked very hard and that a possible solution may be to bring 3RAR up to the same level of training as 4RAR while retaining an Airborne slant. 3RAR could then be brigaded with 4RAR forming a Commando, or Para/Commando Brigade with a number of support and training functions administered at brigade level. I then started to wonder if this may have come up in the White Paper deliberations. A second Commando type battalion would more useful than a third LI Btn, while there would also be cost and recruiting benefits to not relocating them to Townsville. I know the airborne thing has been done to death on previous posts but with HNA motorising and mechanising most of the land force and RAVEN's suggestion that Cav be reroled as "Fighting Cavalry" an additional "elite" Infantry formation may make more sense than an additional light motorised one.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
gf0012-aust       10/19/2008 6:46:59 AM

GF, you are not the first person to mention this. Quite frankly, I find it intriguing and a little confusing - what, exactly, is DOFA's role? What gives them the power and more importantly perhaps, why do they seem to have formed a view that defence specifically has been getting too much money? (why do they not ever recommend/force cuts in education or health funding for example?)

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Brett.


DOFA have oversight of major military projects - esp any involving foreign purchases.  They have a special unit tasked to military projects. 
 
DOFA  ultimately influence (in the current climate esp) what the spend will be.  They're part of the Sec Cabinet Team as well
 
As to why they don't have visibility (per se) with other Depts, well, they do, it's just not common knowledge.  DOFA like DFAT also have a tendency to exercise and flex because they can.  It's the equiv of the US Military dealing with State (DFAT equiv) and Treasury (DOFA and Treasury combined)
 
To put it mildly, and using the current vernacular, they can be an absolute "embuggerance". 
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/19/2008 7:00:32 AM


Um, a CV-22 can't take off conventionally - if it put its rotors horizontal when it was sitting on the ground the rotors would bite about three metres into the ground. A CV-22 has to take off vertically.


Weights



  • Takeoff, vertical, max, lbs -- 52,600 (23,859)
  • Takeoff, short running, max, lbs (kg)

    57,000 (25,855)
  • Takeoff, self-deploy mission, lbs (kg)

    60,500 (27,443)



>>
 
Not quite a "conventional" takeoff but not a vertical one either. In any case it increases the payload and/or range of the Osprey.

 

You're assuming a lot of things there. For starters, exactly where is this country that's exactly 400nm away thats such a  concern?



In the spirit of your previous sarcastic response, um, Timor? I'd note also that the 400nm figure was just one example for the sake of illustration, they would be useful over greater ranges than that as well.



Also to have 6 CV-22s 'available at short notice' you'd need a total fleet of around 18, and I can't see us buying that many. Its interesting to note that there are basically no available Chinooks in Australia right now - all the effort is going into maintaining the two in Afghan.



We don't know how many the government might buy if the case was made. In any case as for the 400nm point, less would still be better than nothing.



Another is that if you were already dropping in 4 RAR and had a LHD offshore, why would you lift in another batalion by helo anyway? Why not just use 4RAR to capture a APOD and fly in your force by C130/C17/C27, which is the way its always planned to be done. I can't imagine any scenario that would require more than the battalion a LHD can hold that wouldn't have a C-130 capable airstrip.
 

If you can't imagine instances in this region with its big populations where we couldn't use extra boots on the ground to capture an airport, then you aren't really trying. More boots on the ground is better than less and being able to deliver them might well save the mission and lives.


 

 

Cost of the CV-22 is too high, as mentioned before, plus due to restrictions in cabin size it cannot carry vehicles. Chinook has a 400nm range anyway.
 
 As for needing more boots on the ground, each LHD is to be capable of carrying a battlalion battlegroup of 1,000 men, a lift by 12 MRH 90's would get 240 troops on the first lift, with only 2-3 required for the whole battalion, similar could be achieved by half a dozen Chinooks. Follow on troops would be via C130 or C17's directly onto the now secured airport.
 
 
Where in our Area of the world would you need to put more then that number of troops on the ground in a single lift? Not to mention that they would be escorted by 6 Tigers. If both LHD's are active, then we are talking ~480 men inserted on the first Lift. More then enough.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/19/2008 7:16:17 AM
Cost of the CV-22 is too high, as mentioned before, plus due to restrictions in cabin size it cannot carry vehicles. Chinook has a 400nm range anyway.

The relevant statistic is combat radius, not range (unless you don't want to bring the aircraft home). The Chinook has a 200nm CR vs 400 for the Osprey in VTOL mode and more in STOL mode.

As for needing more boots on the ground, each LHD is to be capable of carrying a battlalion battlegroup of 1,000 men, a lift by 12 MRH 90's would get 240 troops on the first lift, with only 2-3 required for the whole battalion, similar could be achieved by half a dozen Chinooks. Follow on troops would be via C130 or C17's directly onto the now secured airport.
Where in our Area of the world would you need to put more then that number of troops on the ground in a single lift? Not to mention that they would be escorted by 6 Tigers. If both LHD's are active, then we are talking ~480 men inserted on the first Lift. More then enough.
 
How often do you think both LHD's are going to be active at short notice? I wouldn't be relying on that. As for 1 battalion being enough to secure an entry point, it has been discussed on this board before how ferked we would have been if the Indonesian army had decided to have a go at us during the initial stages of the East Timor deployment in '99. Personally I wouldn't want to be one of the 240 troops that had just landed if my force got bushwhacked by a battalion or two of TNI  troops (like nothing like that ever happenned at say Long Tan or Coral). Having 388 on ground still wouldn't be good but it might allow the force to survive long enough to get reinforced or extracted, where a smaller force might be eaten up. Alternatively having the Osprey's to lift in the infantry could free up some choppers from the LHD's to lift in heavy weapons such as mortars or guns, which are going to put in the real hard yards when it comes to fighting off a superior force.



 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       10/19/2008 7:21:07 AM
In the spirit of your previous sarcastic response, um, Timor? I'd note also that the 400nm figure was just one example for the sake of illustration, they would be useful over greater ranges than that as well.
 
You can fly Blackhawks to Timor from Darwin, so that isn't a compelling reason to buy V-22s. I think you'll find the number of problem countries that are outside the range of a Chinook but inside the range of a V22 from a major Australian staging base (Darwin, Townsville, Brisbane) would be quite small.
 
We don't know how many the government might buy if the case was made. In any case as for the 400nm point, less would still be better than nothing.
 
I can hand-on-my-heart guarentee that Australis is never going to buy 18 V-22s. And there are lots of things we could buy that 'would still be better than nothing'. That does not constitute a compelling reason to buy them.
 
If you can't imagine instances in this region with its big populations where we couldn't use extra boots on the ground to capture an airport, then you aren't really trying. More boots on the ground is better than less and being able to deliver them might well save the mission and lives.
 
Well that says absolutely nothing. I'd still be interested to see a realistic scenario in which V-22s deploying from the Australian mainland could play a decisive role in any conflict. There's certainly not one likely enough to justify spending billions of scarce dollars on V-22s over cheaper and more useful alternatives.
 
How often do you think both LHD's are going to be active at short notice?
 
How often do you think more than one or two V-22s are going to active at short notice?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Raven   10/19/2008 7:41:35 AM

In the spirit of your previous sarcastic response, um, Timor? I'd note also that the 400nm figure was just one example for the sake of illustration, they would be useful over greater ranges than that as well.
 
You can fly Blackhawks to Timor from Darwin, so that isn't a compelling reason to buy V-22s. I think you'll find the number of problem countries that are outside the range of a Chinook but inside the range of a V22 from a major Australian staging base (Darwin, Townsville, Brisbane) would be quite small.

 We don't know how many the government might buy if the case was made. In any case as for the 400nm point, less would still be better than nothing.

 I can hand-on-my-heart guarentee that Australis is never going to buy 18 V-22s. And there are lots of things we could buy that 'would still be better than nothing'. That does not constitute a compelling reason to buy them.

 If you can't imagine instances in this region with its big populations where we couldn't use extra boots on the ground to capture an airport, then you aren't really trying. More boots on the ground is better than less and being able to deliver them might well save the mission and lives.

 Well that says absolutely nothing. I'd still be interested to see a realistic scenario in which V-22s deploying from the Australian mainland could play a decisive role in any conflict. There's certainly not one likely enough to justify spending billions of scarce dollars on V-22s over cheaper and more useful alternatives.

 How often do you think both LHD's are going to be active at short notice? 

How often do you think more than one or two V-22s are going to active at short notice?
Knowing your overwhelming desire to be seen to "win" in these discussions, to the extent that you are willing to nitpick, misrepresent facts, misrepresent my arguments and misrepresent your actual level of inside knowledge of the workings of the Australian defence sphere, I have the distinct feeling that this argument is going to start to get silly. As such I can't really be bothered continuing it with you. People have seen my case and I'm happy for them to make their own judgements as to whether or not it has merit.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/19/2008 7:50:39 AM

Cost of the CV-22 is too high, as mentioned before, plus due to restrictions in cabin size it cannot carry vehicles. Chinook has a 400nm range anyway.



The relevant statistic is combat radius, not range (unless you don't want to bring the aircraft home). The Chinook has a 200nm CR vs 400 for the Osprey in VTOL mode and more in STOL mode.



As for needing more boots on the ground, each LHD is to be capable of carrying a battlalion battlegroup of 1,000 men, a lift by 12 MRH 90's would get 240 troops on the first lift, with only 2-3 required for the whole battalion, similar could be achieved by half a dozen Chinooks. Follow on troops would be via C130 or C17's directly onto the now secured airport.
Where in our Area of the world would you need to put more then that number of troops on the ground in a single lift? Not to mention that they would be escorted by 6 Tigers. If both LHD's are active, then we are talking ~480 men inserted on the first Lift. More then enough.

 

How often do you think both LHD's are going to be active at short notice? I wouldn't be relying on that. As for 1 battalion being enough to secure an entry point, it has been discussed on this board before how ferked we would have been if the Indonesian army had decided to have a go at us during the initial stages of the East Timor deployment in '99. Personally I wouldn't want to be one of the 240 troops that had just landed if my force got bushwhacked by a battalion or two of TNI  troops (like nothing like that ever happenned at say Long Tan or Coral). Having 388 on ground still wouldn't be good but it might allow the force to survive long enough to get reinforced or extracted, where a smaller force might be eaten up. Alternatively having the Osprey's to lift in the infantry could free up some choppers from the LHD's to lift in heavy weapons such as mortars or guns, which are going to put in the real hard yards when it comes to fighting off a superior force.








I suppose I should now point out that each LHD is to carry 6+ Tiger gunships and that any target within reasonable range is also going to be in range of Darwin based CAS from F/A18's (and the F18E/F & F35 once we have them).
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Steve   10/19/2008 8:02:29 AM




Cost of the CV-22 is too high, as mentioned before, plus due to restrictions in cabin size it cannot carry vehicles. Chinook has a 400nm range anyway.







The relevant statistic is combat radius, not range (unless you don't want to bring the aircraft home). The Chinook has a 200nm CR vs 400 for the Osprey in VTOL mode and more in STOL mode.







As for needing more boots on the ground, each LHD is to be capable of carrying a battlalion battlegroup of 1,000 men, a lift by 12 MRH 90's would get 240 troops on the first lift, with only 2-3 required for the whole battalion, similar could be achieved by half a dozen Chinooks. Follow on troops would be via C130 or C17's directly onto the now secured airport.










Where in our Area of the world would you need to put more then that number of troops on the ground in a single lift? Not to mention that they would be escorted by 6 Tigers. If both LHD's are active, then we are talking ~480 men inserted on the first Lift. More then enough.



 



How often do you think both LHD's are going to be active at short notice? I wouldn't be relying on that. As for 1 battalion being enough to secure an entry point, it has been discussed on this board before how ferked we would have been if the Indonesian army had decided to have a go at us during the initial stages of the East Timor deployment in '99. Personally I wouldn't want to be one of the 240 troops that had just landed if my force got bushwhacked by a battalion or two of TNI  troops (like nothing like that ever happenned at say Long Tan or Coral). Having 388 on ground still wouldn't be good but it might allow the force to survive long enough to get reinforced or extracted, where a smaller force might be eaten up. Alternatively having the Osprey's to lift in the infantry could free up some choppers from the LHD's to lift in heavy weapons such as mortars or guns, which are going to put in the real hard yards when it comes to fighting off a superior force.



















I suppose I should now point out that each LHD is to carry 6+ Tiger gunships and that any target within reasonable range is also going to be in range of Darwin based CAS from F/A18's (and the F18E/F & F35 once we have them).




Air support is undoubtely useful. However, having a couple of Tigers overhead with a 30mm, some rockets and Hellfires isn't going to do much more than beat down the advance guard of a large force. Fixed wing airstrikes will cause serious damage, but it isn't as responsive as artillery or mortars and it can't be used as close to friendly troops. Organic fire support has often turned a battle, so it is important that we have adequate amounts of it on any deployment.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       10/22/2008 1:45:43 AM
For the record, I don't think the Osprey can actually fit on the proposed LHDs, it's too big. (maybe two http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_modernizacion/prefLang_en/02_jc_i--04_perfil_mision_es).
 
Here's a pic of the MV-22 on HMS Illustrious: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server?show=nav.1268&imageIndex=58
 
Although the Aussie LHDs are bigger than the Invincibles, it's not that much bigger (certainly not USN Gator sized).
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       10/22/2008 1:46:49 AM

For the record, I don't think the Osprey can actually fit on the proposed LHDs, it's too big. (maybe two http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_modernizacion/prefLang_en/02_jc_i--04_perfil_mision_es</a>;)." target="_blank">link

Here's a pic of the MV-22 on HMS Illustrious: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server?show=nav.1268&imageIndex=58</a></div>;" target="_blank">link

 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       10/22/2008 1:50:43 AM
Damn it!
 
 LHD layout:
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_modernizacion/prefLang_en/02_jc_i--04_perfil_mision_es
 
HMS Illustrious+MV-22:   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics