OT - Aussie Marines!

[Targan]

The Australian Government has announced plans for the Australian Army to create an Amphibious Ready Group, the equivalent of a single USMC Marine Expeditionary Unit. Our 2 landing dock ships are currently under construction in Spain and will come into service in 2013. They'll each carry a couple of Abrams MBTs, a couple of Eurotiger attack helos and a bunch of landing craft.

The unit being used to form the ARG will be 3 RAR, who were formerly the Australian Army's paratroopers. They'll start training for their new role when they return from their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. This obviously ties in nicely with the recent announcement of US Marines to be based in Darwin for dry season training. They'll be able to help 3 RAR prepare for their new, specialised role.

[Legbreaker]

Odd, given the Commando units had the marine role, at least back in the 80's and 90's anyway.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Odd, given the Commando units had the marine role, at least back in the 80's and 90's anyway.

Yes, but the Commando battalions are part of Special Forces now. They'll still have a marine role, in a special forces context. 3RAR as the Amphibious Ready Group will provide a specialist amphibious capability within the regular Australian Army.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Targan

Yes, but the Commando battalions are part of Special Forces now. They'll still have a marine role, in a special forces context. 3RAR as the Amphibious Ready Group will provide a specialist amphibious capability within the regular Australian Army.

looking at your geography and nearby regions - I should think that is a rather good idea.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

The Australian Government has announced plans for the Australian Army to create an Amphibious Ready Group, the equivalent of a single USMC Marine Expeditionary Unit. Our 2 landing dock ships are currently under construction in Spain and will come into service in 2013. They'll each carry a couple of Abrams MBTs, a couple of Eurotiger attack helos and a bunch of landing craft.

The unit being used to form the ARG will be 3 RAR, who were formerly the Australian Army's paratroopers. They'll start training for their new role when they return from their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. This obviously ties in nicely with the recent announcement of US Marines to be based in Darwin for dry season training. They'll be able to help 3 RAR prepare for their new, specialised role.

I would say that any new Australian Marine Group would be drawn from a combination of selected units from the Special Operations Command and the three brigades of the 1st Division.

Tanks are likely to be assigned from the 1st Armoured Regiment, and the paratroops of the 3rd battalion and helicopters from the 16th Aviation Brigade are probably going to be used. Light armoured vehicles and mechanised infantry could be selected from any of the cavalry regiments and mechanised and motorised infantry battalions of the 1st Divisions three brigades. Special forces from the SAS and commando regiments are also probably going to be used.

Australian military expenditure seems to be on a bit of an upswing at the moment after years in the doldrums.

The army has got new heavy M1A1 tanks to replace the limited Leopard AS1's, a lot of new Bushmasters and new British field howitzers, and more Chinooks and new Tiger and MRH-90 helicopters. The RAAF has got a few squadrons of F/A-18F Super Hornets to keep them going until it gets the F-35, and whole load of new aircaft such as the Wedgetail, P-8 Posiedons, Airbus A330 tankers and C-17's are being delivered or are on order.

The RAN seems to be unergoing the greatest expansion with two new Canberra Class LHD's on order, as well as three Hobart Class AEGIS destroyers and six heavy landing craft, new helicopters and the recent purchase of the British Largs Bay LSD. The Collins Class submarines and the Adelaide Class Frigate are also undergoing significant upgrades, while the RAN also plan to buy new fleet replenishment ship. They also have announced future plans to buy 12 new submarines equipped with cruise missiles and mini-subs, 8 new destroyer sized frigates and 20 offshore patrol vessels and a new LPD.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

Tanks are likely to be assigned from the 1st Armoured Regiment.

Not exactly a lot of choice with the tanks - that's the only armoured unit we have.

With regard to future acquisitions, it's very unlikely to happen. The current govenment is hanging on by a thread and extremely unlikely to be voted back into power anytime in the next decade. The current opposition may follow through and buy some of the items, but not until they get the economy back under control.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just a few points (and note, I am opposed to the this idea).
The Commando Regiments have long been considered part of the special forces along with the Regional Force Surveillance Units. The only difference with them now is that they are grouped under the same higher command as SASR. They would be wasted as an amphibious assault force as their skills cover covert infiltration of enemy sealanes, harbours etc. etc.

As Targan indicated, 3 RAR will lose its paratroop role and will be tasked as the Amphibious Ready Group.

We don't have any real need for an amphibious assault force and to be brutal, in this day and age unless we actually had the numbers that the USMC has, this group will get slaughtered trying to conduct any sort of opposed beach landing. We'd probably be okay as long as we just attack beaches belonging to Third World nations
When's the last time a real opposed amphibious action was carried out? How many personnel did they need to achieve it? How many naval vessels were required to support the action?

This concept sounds good and even looks good on paper but it's unrealistic in Australia's current condition.
The reason for that is glaringly simple - we have just 9 surface combatants in the fleet, 3 air warfare destroyers and 6 frigates.
We don't have the navy to support the current Australian governments fantasy of having an Australian Marine Corps

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not exactly a lot of choice with the tanks - that's the only armoured unit we have..

Well yes but the question was sort of asked so I just stated where any tanks were likely to be coming from.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

With regard to future acquisitions, it's very unlikely to happen. The current govenment is hanging on by a thread and extremely unlikely to be voted back into power anytime in the next decade. The current opposition may follow through and buy some of the items, but not until they get the economy back under control.

A lot of this equipment has or is already being delivered. The LHD's and the AEGIS destroyers are building, the Largs Bay has already been bought from Britain and much of the aircraft on order are being delivered. 5 C-17's are in service and some of the Wedgetail's and tankers have already been delivered. I think compared to many other countries the Australian economy is doing quite well although your government seems fairly unpopular, but who's isn't at the moment.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Just a few points (and note, I am opposed to the this idea).
The Commando Regiments have long been considered part of the special forces along with the Regional Force Surveillance Units. The only difference with them now is that they are grouped under the same higher command as SASR. They would be wasted as an amphibious assault force as their skills cover covert infiltration of enemy sealanes, harbours etc. etc.

As Targan indicated, 3 RAR will lose its paratroop role and will be tasked as the Amphibious Ready Group.

We don't have any real need for an amphibious assault force and to be brutal, in this day and age unless we actually had the numbers that the USMC has, this group will get slaughtered trying to conduct any sort of opposed beach landing. We'd probably be okay as long as we just attack beaches belonging to Third World nations
When's the last time a real opposed amphibious action was carried out? How many personnel did they need to achieve it? How many naval vessels were required to support the action?

This concept sounds good and even looks good on paper but it's unrealistic in Australia's current condition.
The reason for that is glaringly simple - we have just 9 surface combatants in the fleet, 3 air warfare destroyers and 6 frigates.
We don't have the navy to support the current Australian governments fantasy of having an Australian Marine Corps

I don't know why Australia wants a marine force if its own and it probably won't create one in the real sense of the word other than assigning army units to support and amphibous operation if they need to. More likely Australia sees itself as being able to contribute to part of a wider Western or allied deployment force in the Asia and Pacific region alongside American, NZ and possibly British and some friendly Asian forces such as Singapore, Japan or South Korea.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

We don't have any real need for an amphibious assault force and to be brutal, in this day and age unless we actually had the numbers that the USMC has, this group will get slaughtered trying to conduct any sort of opposed beach landing. We'd probably be okay as long as we just attack beaches belonging to Third World nations
When's the last time a real opposed amphibious action was carried out? How many personnel did they need to achieve it? How many naval vessels were required to support the action?

I can't see Australia or any other country mounting a major amphibious operation against anybody in the future, although the US has the capabiity to do so. But there is a lot of coastline around Australia and a lot of large and small islands around it, and I think the Aussies might be a bit jittery about how they were a bit dependent on American forces in East Timor a few years ago, and also how much amphib capacity Indonesia has, which is its only realistic rival in the south Pacific.

[Legbreaker]

I'm completely with Stainless on this. While we need the capacity to conduct limited amphibious operations, this in reality amounts to little more than what the Commandos were already doing back 20 years ago - raids on fairly soft targets over virtually undefended beaches, along with logistical support for troops already on the ground. An amphibious assault force just plain doesn't make any real sense in more than a flag waving way.

Australia simply doesn't have the population or military base to support this. The resources would be better spent on aircraft and patrol boats to patrol the coastline along with something like a long range patrol force (expansion of Norforce?).

As for sending troops overseas on peace keeping missions and the like, did the politicians actually talk to the military before deciding on this course of action, or is it just an attempt to make us into a "mini me" of the US?

It's all well and good to want to help out militarily on the world stage, but Australia in the grand scheme of things is tiny. I recall back in 1991 the military were so short on manpower that if another hundred soldiers were sent overseas, reservists were slated to be called up for active duty - I don't think this even happened during Vietnam even though we had conscription (plenty of reservists volunteered for full time duty though).

Now though you can see reservists serving overseas on a regular basis just to fill the numbers. An amphibious assault group in the current environment just plain doesn't seem like a smart idea, even if the resources are already existing and simply being drawn from other units.

As for East Timor, I don't recall the US being involved there at all, at least not in the first twelve months. Australia pretty much went it alone and did very well.

[Legbreaker]

From a month ago:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226175648532

One team will be at sea virtually full-time, one will be in lead-up training and the third will be resting.

And we all know what "resting" really is in the military don't we....

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As for East Timor, I don't recall the US being involved there at all, at least not in the first twelve months. Australia pretty much went it alone and did very well.

Well they did send the Tarawa Class carriers Belleau Wood in October 1999 and the carrier Peleliu from October to November 1999 along with their heavy lift helicopters, and the Ticonderoga Class cruiser Mobile Bay was in charge of coordinating air defence for the whole mission and was a naval operational base for Australian Black Hawks. USAF C-141's airlifted Thai troops to East Timor in October 1999, while C-17's and C-5's supported the operation throughout by landing supplies in Darwin, and three C-130's flew in and out of East Timor. The Kitty Hawk battle group was also sent to prowl around the waters off the coast of Indonesia which probably explains why the Indonesian air force didn't move an inch during the operation.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The current opposition may follow through and buy some of the items, but not until they get the economy back under control.

Oh yeah, the economy badly needs to be brought under control. I mean, it's probably the strongest developed economy in the world but let's not let that get in the way of party-political parochialism, eh?

[ArmySGT.]

I think the Aussie MOD has come to the rightful conclusion that large scale Airborne operations are over, where as an Amphibious unit can still be useful with most engagements. Doing the Traditional secure a beach head for follow on forces.

Looking to all the Island chains to the North of the Australian Continent; and the very real possibility of wars fought for ownership of the South China sea (Spratly Islands Oil reserve).

Looks logical from my side.

[Legbreaker]

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/EastTimor.html
I'd say this site spells out quite nicely the limited role most countries played in comparison to Australia, and I think we managed to get ourselves there without relying on the fairly limited US resources allocated.

Originally Posted by Targan

Oh yeah, the economy badly needs to be brought under control. I mean, it's probably the strongest developed economy in the world but let's not let that get in the way of party-political parochialism, eh?

True, the Australian economy is strong in comparison to most other nations but that doesn't mean it's all that healthy either. These days I'm a commercial investment manager with a portfolio worth around $75 million, I deal on a daily basis with business both small and large and I can't remember a time when there's been so many businesses failing and defaulting on their financial obligations. Most of these businesses have virtually no reliance at all on factors outside Australia. They have however been heavily effected by decisions made by the current government.

Perhaps my view is clouded somewhat by the local state situation where the government is basically broke. They're pulling AU$100,000,000.00 (US$ is roughly equal) out of the local public hospital (which services a population of approximately 150,000 people) after attempting to close 15 public schools across the state (total population of about half a million) - they suffered a VERY nasty backlash. The state government, like the federal government is a hung parliment with the Greens (very minor party) holding the balance of power and so we have a lot of the same types of problems here that exists in Canberra.

My understanding is it's a different story in the West where you are Targan, what with the resources boom and all...

I believe in a multiparty system as I indicated in the Politics thread. Simplified greatly I see the Australian arrangement as basically Labor spending bucketloads of money on infrastructure projects, then the Liberals coming in and paying off all the debt. This time around Labor has basically ballsed it all up - take the roof insulation scandle, or the schools improvement - both schemes which were horribly abused to the tune of hundred of millions of dollars.

I don't see Labor themselves as the problem, just the current batch of them.

Back on topic, it does make some sense to do away with paratroops in the modern world, however I'm not convinced Australia needs a dedicated amphibious force. Capability yes, but not a force that does amphibious operations and only amphibious operations 24/7/365.

[ArmySGT.]

Makes sense to me still to convert Paratroops into Marines.

Large Scale Airborne Operations in contested airspace is dead.

An Expeditionary unit with Land ships and Landing craft brings much more than an equivalent airborne unit can (tonnage of supply), and with the vehicles to move that logistical tail about.

[dragoon500ly]

You do realize that the Airborne Mafia now have you on their hit list now? WHAT!!! No more classic large-scale airborne operations????? Why it calls most of their existence into question.

Although I do agree with you, the era of the Large Airborne Operation is over.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

You do realize that the Airborne Mafia now have you on their hit list now? WHAT!!! No more classic large-scale airborne operations????? Why it calls most of their existence into question.

Although I do agree with you, the era of the Large Airborne Operation is over.

Yes, well everytime they hold up "Overlord" as a winning example (why?) I remind them of "Market Garden".

Current radar, satellite systems, and engagement with missiles from beyond visual range makes loading up heavy lifters with 200 paratroops an act of criminal stupidity.

[Webstral]

I agree that the era of large-scale airborne operations against well-equipped opposition has passed, but the airborne still have their role. It's important to be able to exploit opportunities. At the very least, airborne units travel by air. Perhaps as importantly, airborne units view themselves as an elite and tend to train that way. Whether the 82nd Airborne ever makes another assault drop, they are a highly motivated group that train hard and have excellent esprit de corps. They are one of the few formations in the Army that I would hold up against the Marines on a battalion-by-battalion basis. If the price we pay for maintaining such a formation is the illusion that we may someday execute a divisional combat drop, what's the harm?

[Legbreaker]

Money. It costs a lot of money to keep sufficient aircraft on hand to shift an entire division.
There's also the limits on size and weight able to be carried by air. An airborne force is never realistically ever going to be much more that light infantry.

[Sanjuro]

I agree that large scale beach landings against defended positions are unlikely; however, a trained amphibious brigade is the ideal way of getting a defensive force into position, with the heavy weapons, armour and logistical support if a threat becomes apparent.
It would be theoretically possible for an invader to land a force somewhere on a remote part of Australia's coast, with the plan of expanding the beachhead before defending forces can be brought to bear- but if Oz has a unit capable of landing on the next beach, ready to fight, that invasion becomes much less practical.
Ok, setting up an amphib brigade ready to invade yourself would be unusual, but it seems (to this ignorant foreigner, anyway) a novel and effective solution to some of Australia's unique defensive problems.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

It would be theoretically possible for an invader to land a force somewhere on a remote part of Australia's coast, with the plan of expanding the beachhead before defending forces can be brought to bear- but if Oz has a unit capable of landing on the next beach, ready to fight, that invasion becomes much less practical.
Ok, setting up an amphib brigade ready to invade yourself would be unusual, but it seems (to this ignorant foreigner, anyway) a novel and effective solution to some of Australia's unique defensive problems.

Well the theory in your statements is sound and you do seem to have an understanding of Australia's geographical challenges. The thing about seizing and holding a beachhead in a remote part of Australia is that it begs the question, to what end? What do you do with the piece of Australia you're holding? Getting from place to place over large parts of wilderness Australia you'd need to effectively re-embark and invade all over again. It's a strange place, Australia, especially northern Australia. Pockets of civilization surrounded by thousands of miles of nothing. The vast majority of the population and infrastructure along the east and south-east costs.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree that the era of large-scale airborne operations against well-equipped opposition has passed, but the airborne still have their role. It's important to be able to exploit opportunities. At the very least, airborne units travel by air. Perhaps as importantly, airborne units view themselves as an elite and tend to train that way. Whether the 82nd Airborne ever makes another assault drop, they are a highly motivated group that train hard and have excellent esprit de corps. They are one of the few formations in the Army that I would hold up against the Marines on a battalion-by-battalion basis. If the price we pay for maintaining such a formation is the illusion that we may someday execute a divisional combat drop, what's the harm?

Airborne units travel by air, that was also the argument used to justify the light divisions, remember all of the studies that showed how much easier it was to transport a LID by air rather than any other type of division (and that included airborne and Marine!!!)?

I don't dispute the need to maintain a airborne division, especially since current doctrine is that any future operation would be, at most, brigade sized; you would need a division in order to keep a ready brigade on the Green Ramp. But I doubt, that there would ever be another division or multi-division sized airborne operation.

While the paratroopers point to their success at Normandy and Market Garden, I also remember the slaughter of the airborne troopers in the Battle of the Bulge when they were committed as regular infantry in an emergency, remember the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, the were committed on December 21st with 745 men and relieved on January 23rd, with 55 men remaining, or the 551st Parachute Infantry Battalion, committed on December 21st with 845 men and relieved on January 9th, with 98 men remaining.

Its the same story today as then, they are just too lightly equipped to go toe-to-toe with a armored division....

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Money. It costs a lot of money to keep sufficient aircraft on hand to shift an entire division.
There's also the limits on size and weight able to be carried by air. An airborne force is never realistically ever going to be much more that light infantry.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the money/aircraft issue doesn't work the same for the US as for Australia. The aircraft already exist, although many of them might be doing other jobs until the airborne guys need moving. I agree completely that airborne forces are going to be light. One has to adjust expectations accordingly.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

The thing about seizing and holding a beachhead in a remote part of Australia is that it begs the question, to what end?

I'd be more inclined to think land transportation via rail (not a huge amount going into remote areas, but should get you part way) and trucks would be generally safer for defending Australia - can't sink a truck like you can a ship. Admittedly you need more trucks and drivers than a ship, but Australia already has the necessary infrastructure, especially if you pull in civilian contractors to haul supplies.

Ships would still be needed, but I'm just not convinced you need an entire battalion of specialist marines. Just can't see them being required any time in the next few decades, at least not in a true amphibious role. Chances are those ships and the troops they carry will see more action doing disaster relief missions around the Pacific islands than anything close to combat.

Originally Posted by Webstral

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the money/aircraft issue doesn't work the same for the US as for Australia. The aircraft already exist, although many of them might be doing other jobs until the airborne guys need moving.

But are all those aircraft actually needed for the other duties all of the time? Cannot there be a reduction in aircraft if the Airborne forces are reduced or done away with entirely? Doesn't that save money on maintenance, fuel, training, and replacement aircraft?

True, a capability needs to be maintained to shift troops by air, but airborne troops trained specifically for parachute insertions and the aircraft needed for those drops seems rather out of place on the modern battlefield.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

But are all those aircraft actually needed for the other duties all of the time? Cannot there be a reduction in aircraft if the Airborne forces are reduced or done away with entirely? Doesn't that save money on maintenance, fuel, training, and replacement aircraft?

There’s always a need for transportation aircraft. Some needs can be deferred while the airborne guys go where they need to go. This is true whether the parachutists execute a combat jump or whether they just run off the aircraft like they did in Operation Desert Shield. Jump or land on the aircraft, there’s a need to move the troops. The airlift guys get paid to prioritize. The existence of the reserve air fleet makes it possible to respond to changes in the volume of air transport.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

True, a capability needs to be maintained to shift troops by air, but airborne troops trained specifically for parachute insertions and the aircraft needed for those drops seems rather out of place on the modern battlefield.

I agree with this:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

…parachute insertions [of formations larger than a battalion]… seem rather out of place on the modern battlefield.

The aircraft needed for parachute insertions are the same ones needed for airdrops for resupply. Cargo helicopters can take up some of the load, but the bulk freight movers are fixed-wing aircraft. Having enough to drop a brigade or more in a single go means having enough to drop lots of supplies. As we all know, warfare is a matter of logistics. WW2 may have validated and invalidated the airborne division at the same time, but it validated aerial resupply beyond all question. If keeping the airframes for airborne units to drop keeps more airframes for cargo airdrop serviceable, then the money is very well spent indeed.

As for airborne troops trained for large scale insertion, I’ll go back to the esprit de corps. These guys think they’re special. This counts for something during the training, and I believe it counts for something on the battlefield. Given that we want to keep the cargo aircraft on-hand, and given that maintaining airborne status in the 82nd only requires one jump per quarter, the cost isn’t really that high.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I'd be more inclined to think land transportation via rail (not a huge amount going into remote areas, but should get you part way) and trucks would be generally safer for defending Australia - can't sink a truck like you can a ship. Admittedly you need more trucks and drivers than a ship, but Australia already has the necessary infrastructure, especially if you pull in civilian contractors to haul supplies.

Ships would still be needed, but I'm just not convinced you need an entire battalion of specialist marines. Just can't see them being required any time in the next few decades, at least not in a true amphibious role. Chances are those ships and the troops they carry will see more action doing disaster relief missions around the Pacific islands than anything close to combat.


But are all those aircraft actually needed for the other duties all of the time? Cannot there be a reduction in aircraft if the Airborne forces are reduced or done away with entirely? Doesn't that save money on maintenance, fuel, training, and replacement aircraft?

True, a capability needs to be maintained to shift troops by air, but airborne troops trained specifically for parachute insertions and the aircraft needed for those drops seems rather out of place on the modern battlefield.

My only concern about depending on rail to allow for logistic flexibility is that rail is amazingly vulnerable to all sorts of issues. One person with 10, 15 kilo's of TNT - especially given how remote a lot of rail down that way must be - can easily put a stop to rail traffic. A decent set of tools can also sub for the TNT, and its hard to ban common tools. Devoting the manpower and resources to secure the entire length of the track is very counter-productive.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

My only concern about depending on rail to allow for logistic flexibility is that rail is amazingly vulnerable to all sorts of issues.

Very true and something I had in the back of my mind while I was writing that post. The good news is that rail lines (at least here in Australia) tend to be repaired very quickly. Even a major derailment and destruction of a kilometre or so of line tends to be little more than a 24 hour hiccup.
Obviously patrols of the lines would be required which may tie up manpower, but overall, even if the worst should happen and a train is on top of the explosive device, you're still not likely to loose the entire load of cargo as you would with a ship at sea being sunk.
Fortunately here in Australia, most destinations are not on the rail lines and so trucks are required. And some of our trucks are HUGE!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train
In fact, most places you may see combat occuring will be hundreds or kilometres from the nearest rail line.