Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New US Army format a model for the ARA?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New US Army format a model for the ARA?

    Been a while since I posted a query thread on this forum but I've been reading up on the transformation of the US Army and I'm wondering if it might be feasible to take some of the principles the US has been coming up with and applying them to the ARA. Currently the 'Hardened and Networked Army' plan is indeed a promising start to a transformation of the ARA from a home defence militia to an expeditionary combined arms force. Currently the ARA is lacking in just about everything except for quality personnel and training, as well as our rather impressive SF capabilities.

    My thoughts have been on how to best remedy this situation. One idea I've been toying with would be to make a far greater utilisation of the Reserves (this one is already on the boiler), by rolling over those capabilities we do not regularly use into reserve service. For example, the ARA has made almost no use of Heavy Armour for decades. My approach is to form Reserve Heavy Armoured units that are deployable, along the lines of the US Army's new Combined Arms Maneuver Battalions. The way I see it, we could have these battalions on higher-readiness than standard reserve, so that they would be available for deployment in the event that they were needed (this is unlikely in any regional rapid-reaction scenario) but would not be soaking up manpower and resources on a full-time basis, allowing the full-timers to be concentrated into more mobile, rapid reaction-based formations. Indeed, I would like to see us raising a larger force of heavy armour from the reserves than we have in the active forces now. Under the principle of 'an army of twos' we should and could be able to form two such battalions at least, and probably a third. AFVs could be an issue, however an expansion of our current acquisition of Abrams Tanks, and possibly a purchase of used Bradley IFVs from the US, which could be done at relatively little cost and provide us with plenty of inter-operability would allay this problem.
    Since it would take considerable time to deploy Heavy Armour, even at the levels we currently possess, it seems to me that having the personnel from these units on two weeks notice would constitute a major loss of readiness. This way we would retain the capability, indeed at a greater level, for reduced cost. It would also free up more personnel who have committed themselves to full-time service for more mobile formations that we are more likely to use.

    Such mobile units are already being formed. Currently we project 3 Light infantry Battalions as being on notice to form the basis of highly mobile BattleGroups and Company Combat Teams. I personally feel that these units should be equipped with Bushmaster IMVs, to increase their mobility and their survivability. I think the new US Standard Infantry Battalions would be a good model, with their concentration of supporting units as well as AT Capabilities (An increased order of Javs would be a plus in this regard).
    I think we should also consider forming more motor-recon units based on the Bushmaster to provide them with their STA assets as needed. Currently this kind of light recon unit is being raised in the Reserves but not on the active forces as far as I can see.
    Otherwise a 'meduim' element built around ASLAV mounted cavalry and, perhaps, Stryker mounted Infantry would be a major plus to the capabilities of the full-time Army, as it would provide us with a force of reasonably well armed troops who are still quick to move. They could make good use of our plan to purchase truck-mounted Arty.

    Indeed, this approach could be used with the RAAF and RAN, who could also make us of their Reserves to retain less-used capabilities at a lower cost. For example the RAAF has no ground based AD. None. Perhaps we should consider a smaller purchase of Patriot SAMs down the track, to equip RAAF units, which could be placed into reserve if the need for ground-based AD is not found to be great. The same could be said for RAN Coastal defence, in a manner similar to the CF's approach of having their Naval Reserve operate a fleet of CD vessels, that allow the longer-ranged ships to be deployed overseas as needed. It's definately worth considering as the separation between 'defence of Australia' and 'Defence of Australia interests' becomes more clear.

  • #2
    Anyway I was wondering what the pros thought of my ideas?

    Comment

    Working...
    X