I believe a light infantry based force is anachronistic in the modern age. The age old infantry saying "the worst ride is better than the best walk" holds every bit as true for deployed operations as it does for so called "continental defence.

Our Army should therefore be entirely motorised in the sense that it has vehicular transport, rather than "wheeled or tracked" specifically.

 

I believe that the current plan to transform Army from a light infantry based force to a light armoured force is probably the most reasonable path. Army certainly needs heavy elements in order to sustain a credible warfighting capability.

 

I would suggest a single NATO styled Armoured brigade which is capable of fighting as a single unit or creating multiple battlegroup sized formations, would be sufficient to satisfy the "heavy" element and in that respective the current ELF/HNA doesn't quite go far enough.

  

The Army "2020 follow-on force" project seeks to move Army from an Army of "twos" under HNA/ELF to an Army of "threes". I believe this would be adequate to provide for 1 Brigades structure.

 

1 Brigade would therefore consist of: 

  

3x mech battalions.

 

An armoured regiment with 3x tank squadrons. 

 

An artillery regiment with 3x artillery gun batteries, to support a battalion each.

 

A Cavalry Regiment with 3x Squadons (already present). 

 

Plus supporting elements. 

3 Brigade and 7 Brigade would follow suit with:

 

3x light armoured infantry battalion.

 

An artillery Regiment with 3x gun batteries, to support a battalion each. 

 

A Cavalry Regiment with 3x squadrons.

 

Plus supporting elements.

 

The difference between 3 Brigade and 7 Brigade would be that 3 Brigade focuses on dismounted operations (and continues to provide the "rapid deployment" role), whilst 7 Brigade focuses on long ranged mounted operations (and sustainment operations).

 

This plan would require the creation of 2x extra infantry battalions, over and above HNA/ELF plans, with Army then operating 9x infantry battalions, which still does not exceed that which was maintained by Army during Vietnam (and a much more difficult time economically and a much smaller population, though battalions were "fleshed out" with Nashos')...

 

Army Aviation (16 Aviation Brigade) would be operated with 3x Aviation Regiments, each with 3x Squadrons. Two of these Regiments would be dedicated to tactical transport with MRH-90 and Chinook Squadrons in each Regiment.  

 

SOCOMD would continue to operate as now, however 1 Cmdo Regiment would gain a further Commando Company to be based in South East Queensland / North New South Wales. 4RAR would lose the "RAR" title and simply become 4 Commando Regiment. The title of 4RAR would transfer to the additional battalion to be created for 1 Brigade.

 

There would also be a force support Brigade, operating 3x combat support regiments. 

  

This would comprise Army's "ready force", (presently known as 1 Division)

 

A sustainment force (currently 2nd Division) would also be operated.

 

I would continue to operate the "3" structure, contained within a Brigade (or taskforce if you prefer a more modern term) but with each capable of providing 3x individual battlegroups, just as the "ready force" units do.

 

These battlegroups would be geographically separated, but capable of collective training activities depending on resource allocations. Low maintenance vehicles, but with "survivability enhancement kits" would be a feature of these units CES, to maximise the training time available to these part time units.

 

I would however advocate that these units be equipped with capabilities relevent to modern warfare, rather than simply "training" capabilites. I am a firm believer that warfare (of whatever intensity) will always be a "come as you are" proposition and we will never have full time force of sufficient size to handle all our requirements, short of a conventional "nation on nation" threat scenario with significant lead time.

 

Part-time units such as infantry would therefore have a capability to em

Just a thought, but if Australia is moving away from light role infantry, towards mechanised infantry, can your current logistics sustain that?

I cannot claim any special knowledge but (to tide you over with an answer until the more informed arrive) I would think that having sufficient numbers of trades qualified people (perenially a problem) may be an issue, as might the lack of Combat engineers. In terms of movement, the LHDs and Sealift ship will assist wuth the heavier components and the current airlift will probably come in handy moving all the bushmasters around. Overall it will probably depend on the size of the deployment. I would think that an armoured battlegroup (or more likely a combined arms one) would be do-able. 

 

Brett.

I am curious as to how you see such an equipped army reacting and deploying to an East Timor type flare-up etc (Speed of deployment and manner of deployment  - given recent experience) and whether the force you describe would be superior in such scenarios? Personally I like the structure proposed. It seems to be a great balance and I guess  that some of the motorised infantry can be deployed as light infantry if need be (scaling down being easier than scaling up). Is this the way you envisage such a force operating in such contingencies?

 

Brett.

Armoured, mech and motorised Infantry can always dismount and fight as light forces.

Ask the Brits about how well that went in the Falklands.

Ask the Brits about how well that went in the Falklands.

 

How well would the para's and RMs have gone if they had ben required to fight the Red Army using warriors in a maechanised war? It is far easier for mechanised infantry to re-learn how to fight as light infantryman than it is to teach a light infantryman to fight a mechansied war.

 

Remember, normal British infantry battalions swap from light infantry to armoured infantry every two years. They manage it.