Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"The CO" wrote in message
...

"JD" wrote in message
om...

My two cents;

Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army.

Realistically, in the current environment I think we should be spending
rather more on ALL the services.
This no doubt means an increased budget allocation which would reflect
in increased taxes. The money
has to come from somewhere, so it may be the only real option. We don't
spend enough on defence in
the current somewhat hostile environment.


Agreed.


**** off the idea of tanks, bushmasters, APCs.

It's difficult to envisage a local scenario that would benefit greatly
from heavy armour.
That said, since we have a somewhat capable (depite the length of it's
teeth) MBT,
I'd probably just stick with that. New Leopards might make the turret
heads feel good
but I don't presently believe it would significantly increase our
defence capability.

The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,

They are being rebuilt.

give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more ASLAV
you wouldn't need
to bugger about with it.


The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it is
markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.


Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops as is Arty, having
the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.


Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning would
seem to be essential.

Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.


Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and PTS.

Buy ASLAVs,

Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We need to
improve our force mobility
*significantly*.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..


Agreed.


More choppers.

Yes, and that should include a Cobra or Apache equivalent. But troopie
and heavy lift stuff too.

That is going to cost, and why buy Helos that are specialist anti armour
Helos?

The Tiger will do the support job just fine.


It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
fleet for something newer,
so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport helo
with only the most basic
of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But we
*need* more helos too.

Helos are very expensive to own/operate.



Make all reservists infantry.

I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements' for
more specialised roles is not
without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
Naval Reserve.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.



Or accept that our army really isn't going to do anything,

If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
can't assume that.
It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
will probably be largely
infantry and special forces.


Agreed.


so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems, put in
a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not good for the
alliance.

Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

Only you believe that gate guard, only you.

'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't a
gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
delusions of grandeur.

To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the RAAF,
the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and aren't
smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with his
self important nonsense.

That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.

As for your comments Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111. I'm thinking
that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday, and you
will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
Only you believe that gate guard, only you.

'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't
a
gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
delusions of grandeur.

To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the
RAAF,
the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and
aren't
smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with
his
self important nonsense.

That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.

You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.


As for your comments Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.


I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing more.

The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.

I'm thinking
that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday,

I'm ex Army - the Indons in question have a lot further to go before they
find me.

and you
will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

Nope.

He is largely a waste of space in regards the RAAF role.

If you want directions as to where to park on a RAAF base, gate guard is
your man, otherwise don't bother.

L'acrobat wrote:
"The CO" wrote in message
...
"JD" wrote in message
om...

give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more
ASLAV you wouldn't need
to bugger about with it.

The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle,
it is markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

The Bushmaster is a complete and utter waste of money.

Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.

Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops as is Arty,
having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

And we don't have the biggest sticks.

Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
would seem to be essential.

Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.

Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops
for Para continuation, exercises and so on.

For ****s sake, move them too.

3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.

Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?

Buy ASLAVs,

Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We
need to improve our force mobility
*significantly*.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

No it isn't. Basically, as soon as it rains, Bushmaster needs to be on
sealed roads. We don't even have a recovery capability for it.
[...]

Make all reservists infantry.

I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements'
for more specialised roles is not
without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
Naval Reserve.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

So?
[...]

so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,
put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
good for the alliance.

Like?

Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

We don't have to spend billions of wasted money on the army.

"JD" wrote in message
news:Jug_a.31220$bo1.12853@news-

The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle,
it is markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

The Bushmaster is a complete and utter waste of money.

It is a sensible, practical response to the need for infantry mobility in a
limited funding environment.

If dollars didn't matter Helos would be great, dollars do matter.


Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.

Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops as is Arty,
having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

And we don't have the biggest sticks.

Compared to whom?

Remember it has to be people we are likely to fight in light ops.


Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
would seem to be essential.

Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.

Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops
for Para continuation, exercises and so on.

For ****s sake, move them too.


So are you just going to flush millions for no reason or do you have a plan?

So far you have moved an Inf Bn, Parachute training School, the RAAF
Herc/Caribou Sqns, the Army AD unit, all their supporting elements, maint
etc to Amberley. why? what do you think it will achieve?

Is there room for all these units there? Where is the nearest DZ to Amberley
for PTS?


3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.

Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?

Politically difficult, financially insane, but keep going.



Buy ASLAVs,

Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We
need to improve our force mobility
*significantly*.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

No it isn't. Basically, as soon as it rains, Bushmaster needs to be on
sealed roads. We don't even have a recovery capability for it.
[...]

We have a recovery capability for Leopard tanks and Mack trucks, are you
suggesting that we can't recover a Bushmaster?

When it rains up north very little moves off roads.



Make all reservists infantry.

I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements'
for more specialised roles is not
without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
Naval Reserve.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

So?
[...]


At the moment they provide useful supplements to areas where reg forces
lack, make 'em all Inf or quit and you lose that.

so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,
put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
good for the alliance.

Like?

In english please?


Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

We don't have to spend billions of wasted money on the army.

So an American base, that is there purely to support US aims, will replace
our own military? what a strange world you live in. Perhaps you should ask
the South Vietnamese about how well a total reliance on the US for your
defence can work out?

"JD" wrote in message
...
The CO wrote:
"JD" wrote in message
om...

My two cents;

Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army.

Realistically, in the current environment I think we should be
spending rather more on ALL the services.

Why?

Because we live in an unstable defence environment.


This no doubt means an increased budget allocation which would reflect
in increased taxes. The money
has to come from somewhere, so it may be the only real option.

No thanks. I pay enough tax and I rather see what I do contribute go to
Health and Education.

Always good to have those in top shape for the new owners.


The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,
give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.

The reserves do play with them. The problem is they are nothing but battle
taxis unless substantial money is spent modernising them.

They are being modernised.

Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.

Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning would
seem to be essential.

Beacuse they aren't needed.

Proof?


If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
can't assume that.
It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
will probably be largely
infantry and special forces.

Like what? We had no business going to Iraq. Solomons, ok. But we *really*
don't need an army the size we've got. It isn't big enough to do anything,

The Indonesians certainly disagree.

our security is guaranteed anyway.

Really? by whom?



so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

The Yanks have stated their desire to have a base here. Give it to them.

The Yanks have specifically stated their LACK of desire to have a base here.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:58:21 +1000, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"JD" wrote in message
...

The Yanks have stated their desire to have a base here. Give it to them.

The Yanks have specifically stated their LACK of desire to have a base here.

Yes, that viewpoint was reiterated by Armitage just yesterday.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"The CO" wrote in message
...

snip

We don't spend enough on defence in
the current somewhat hostile environment.

Agreed.

It's difficult to envisage a local scenario that would benefit
greatly
from heavy armour.
That said, since we have a somewhat capable (depite the length of
it's
teeth) MBT,
I'd probably just stick with that. New Leopards might make the
turret
heads feel good
but I don't presently believe it would significantly increase our
defence capability.

The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,

They are being rebuilt.

Is it worth the expense? How significant is the improvement? Are they
going to fix the
water crossing capability as well? ISTR that's been broken a very long
time.
Would it be better to ditch them for something better? Cheaper even?
The M113 is only marginally hardened against even infantry/small arms.

give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more
ASLAV
you wouldn't need
to bugger about with it.

The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it
is
markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

Certainly, but it's soft skinned, so it's still just a truck. If you
are going to have highly
trained troops it's best to protect them til they get where they are
going to fight.
Whilst I see your point about cost, perhaps we should also look at the
costs associated
with training troops only to have them become casualties because some
Indo with an
RPG hosed a bunch of them sitting in the soft skinned Bushmaster on
their way in.

Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops

Hmm, make that *light* armour and I'd agree, (Such as ASLAV or some
other type of at least semi hardened APC with medium size fire support
capability)
I would suggest that heavy armour is more useful against other heavy
armour or in certain urban
scenarios that are rather less likely to happen here. But I'm willing
to be convinced otherwise if you
want to get more specific.

as is Arty,

Arty is arguably the best form of heavy fire support there is.
Remember Long Tan? Arty is good.

having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

Yes, but that can be achieved without resorting to an MBT if you are
up against APC/FSV variants. Terrain is also a factor, an MBT can
become
a sitting target (admittedly a hardened one) if the ground turns to mud
and
it can't move. Lighter vehicles such as ASLAV or variants would be the
last thing to grind to a halt when it got too soft, an MBT would be one
of
the first.

Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
would
seem to be essential.

snip

Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

Ok, there are obviously logistical issues. Effective force placement
would seem
to be something that may require a complete review, nothing is forever.

3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.

Understood. I *do* see your point.

Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We
need to
improve our force mobility
*significantly*.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

Agreed.

The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot) but
supporting a sizeable
force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting one at
some OS locs.

Yes, and that should include a Cobra or Apache equivalent. But
troopie
and heavy lift stuff too.

That is going to cost, and why buy Helos that are specialist anti
armour
Helos?

I consider it would be a good idea to have *some*. But I agree that
Utility and heavy lift
is a bigger force multiplier.

The Tiger will do the support job just fine.

Probably could do most of it. No real argument, provided it can be
equipped to take out
light armour, which is what we are most likely to encounter in this
country if something happens
and on most likely OS placements. It's worth noting that we don't have
much in the line of COIN
or dedicated CAS airframes. Yes the F/A18 can do it, but something a
bit lower and slower can
also be an asset in many circumstances.

It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
fleet for something newer,
so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport
helo
with only the most basic
of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But
we
*need* more helos too.

Helos are very expensive to own/operate.

Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
particularly when everything is
wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements'
for
more specialised roles is not
without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
Naval Reserve.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
replacements in
a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would be
for infantry,
so the balance should favour that corp.

If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
can't assume that.
It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
will probably be largely
infantry and special forces.

Agreed.

I'll add a caveat that if there is a major ruction (such as a
fundamentalist govt
coming to power in Djakarta) then that could change, however it's likely
we
would have help from other major players that could provide the heavier
stuff.
What we do best is not armoured warfare or massive logistics, but we
have friends that do, and we are very good at other roles.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,

Like I said 'cost and provocativeness'.
If the Indos get a dose of nastiness, the provocativeness is no longer a
significant factor, though
the deterrent effect might be.
What's good in one situation isn't necessarily so in another.

put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
good for the
alliance.

Concur. There would need to be an *imminent* threat not a possibility
of one to make
it desirable in view of the negative aspects.

Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

Unless we have a serious situation looming, not a lot. I feel fairly
sure that such a scenario
wouldn't turn into a conflict overnight, there would be lead time to
seek US support and
get them in place *if* it becomes necessary (or desirable). At the
moment, IMHO, it's
better to be as prepared as we can be on our own.


The CO

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
Only you believe that gate guard, only you.

'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't
a
gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
delusions of grandeur.

To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the
RAAF,
the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and
aren't
smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with
his
self important nonsense.

That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.

As for your comments Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111. I'm thinking
that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday, and you
will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

FYI, ADGs don't do "gates" ( and "guard" is a historic term dating back to
WW2). That's the role of the RAAF Security Police.

"Acrobat" is just jealous that ADGs are better-trained, better-equipped, and
better-paid, than grunts.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"The CO" wrote in message
...
Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.


Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

You must be out of the loop dip****. PTS have been known pack up their
bongos and operate out of Amberley (especially during winter) and the long
term plan is for Airlift Group to **** off from Richmond and move
to................... Amberley. Last time I strapped on a parachute and
jumped out of serviceable aircraft in-flight was from Amberley. Funny,
didn't see any gates.


3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and PTS.

PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
decision if there ever was one.



--
De Oppresso Liber.