OT - Aussie Marines!

[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.

[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.