Reply With QuoteLoathe to post this with a McPhedran byline, but it's interesting if as he says they're only going to run one battalion through the rotation. I think it will do that unit harm.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mor...-1226175610489
Australian sailor dies in Mumbai
A Royal Australian Navy sailor has died in India while serving on HMAS Toowoomba.
The Defence Department says the sailor died during a port visit to Mumbai, and an investigation has been launched.
continued
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-2...-india/3597254
Alfa
Loathe to post this with a McPhedran byline, but it's interesting if as he says they're only going to run one battalion through the rotation. I think it will do that unit harm.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mor...-1226175610489
Love the pic caption, that's no 'Australian' amphib vehicle.
On Topic: I guess DOD figure that we won't need more than on battalions trained in amphib assault. Others still able to transported but not act as 'Marines'. I'm not sure. Would it be feasible to train all/more frontline battalions in amphib operations and maintain high levels of skills in both standard ground and amphib ops?
What would your ideal force structure be Dig? How many 'Marine Diggers' do we realistically need to make it a capable force. Mind you this might just be a first step until we learn the ropes perhaps.
Alfa
With the RDF rotation to maintain as well, I'd have thought they'd want all three Battalions trained up and you'd probably want to add another couple of Squadrons to 3/4 Cav too. They'll burn all three of the units out otherwise.
So your objection to the numbers is a rotation/deployment one rather than a 'capability' one. I can see the sense in what your saying. One battalion doesn't seem like a lot for two 27000 tonne amphibs, one of which will presumably always be on deployment or exercise.
Alfa
Yeah, he's talking about a Company group on what I'm supposing is a 4-6 month rotation, add in the RDF rotation that is already shared between the three battalions and it's a fair work load.
He's talking about a company group on the boat at all times, which is about all we'd need in the region. If the SHTF they can get the rest of the Battalion group on board easily enough, then they can load the other boat up with another Battalion if required.
Based upon the Airborne Battle Group model currently built around 3RAR.
Those unfamiliar with Army amphib plans, see: http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exerc...df/hawkins.pdf
Dear god I feel for the blokes that will be stuck out sea for that amount of time. No doubt clashes between soldiers and sailors will occur.
I gave them a heads up on that about 24hrs ago, they obviously dont care about accuracy.Originally Posted by Alfacentori
Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn
Alfa
McPhedran running with option 1, I think option 2 would be more likely.
Digger died on disputed patrol
A Defence Force inquiry has found an Australian soldier died from a roadside bomb blast while participating in a foot patrol that soldiers had initially objected to mounting.
Private Nathan Bewes, 23, was killed instantly by a roadside bomb while on patrol in Afghanistan in July last year.
Despite concerns from some soldiers about the short-notice patrol, the inquiry concluded it was appropriately planned and conducted.
"The inquiry officer examined this decision in detail and concluded that the patrol was appropriately planned, authorised and conducted," Defence Force Vice Chief Air Marshal Mark Binskin said.
continued
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-2...-delay/3601906
Alfa
Maybe I'm being pedantic but I wish they (media in general) would be a bit more specific when they say things like:
'The new ships will be based at Garden Island.'
This always annoys me, considering the Navy's two main bases are on two seperate Garden Islands on opposite ends of the country. It had me scratching my head for a second wondering why they'd put the ships in Perth when the soldiers are in Townsville until it clicked they were talking about the Garden Island in Sydney.
For an army of only 7 battalions option 2 seems unlikely IMO. Remember for the ARG we only need to generate a battlegroup, not a brigade. Option 1 also ties in better with Plan Beersehba as it allows for the leftover 7th battalion to have a purpose, and the rest of the brigades still get the the identical two battalion format.
I just had a quick look at Plan Beersheba, which isn't going to be enough to know what he's on about. Option 1 is one Battalion flogging its self with a company rotation. I don't see that being sustainable, it also takes a unit out of 3 Brigades RDF rotation (if McPhedran is right and it's a 3 Brigade unit).
Posting Permissions
