1 February 2015 - armouredadvocates



1 February 2015.  New info has been added to ‘News’ (Latest from DMO re LAND 400) and (Welcome Home Parades for Afghanistan Veterans); as well as ‘Queries’ (Protected Mobility : CSSB vs RAAC Role?).

Listening to a radio interview with the Australian Defence Association’s Neil James, he was asked what effect the change of Defence Minister might have.  The answer was not a surprise: “policy gets frozen for some months”.  He went on to point out that there is already a capability gap with submarines and it looks like there will be one with AFVs as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 February 2015.  A new post has been added to ‘News’ (Major General ‘Gus’ McLachlan …’); and new info has been added to ‘Articles’ (Centenary of First Tank Battle … re Cambrai Memorial)

The likely date for the Annual Defence Reserves Association Conference has been added to the ‘Action Plan’ (Diary Dates)

Given that the RAAC Corporation failed to make a submission to the 2015 Defence White Paper and missed the opportunity to liaise with Defence Reserves Association (DRA) in this respect, it is to be hoped that the Corporation will attend, and present its policy position at, the 2015 Annual DRA Conference.  If the RAAC Corporation had a priority list of tasks (which it doesn’t), one would expect that RAAC ARES operational capability would be close to the top.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 February 2015.  A new post has been added to 'News' (Defence Reviews.  Where Do We Stand?)

The subjects in two of the reviews are fundamental to the RAAC, why aren't we talking about them?  Where is it strategically important for RAAC units to based around Australia?  What is the force structure that best allows the ADF to fulfill its role?  What role should the ARES have?  Should they be given greater priority than has been the case previously?  Debate on these issues is sadly lacking, in fact it is non-existent.  One can hardly bemoan outcomes if apathy has prevented engagement and input.

New info has been added to 'News' (New Defence Minister …).  A recent interview suggests that "a careful, cautious approach" will taken to LAND 400.  A looming capability gap does not seem to have any significance as far as the new Minister is concerned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 February 2015.  A new post has been added to ‘News’ (Defence Reviews.  Where Do We Stand?)

The subjects in two of the reviews are fundamental to the RAAC, why aren’t we talking about them?  Where is it strategically important for RAAC units to based around Australia?  What is the force structure that best allows the ADF to fulfill its role?  What role should the ARES have?  Should they be given greater priority than has been the case previously?  Debate on these issues is sadly lacking; in fact, it is non-existent.  One can hardly bemoan outcomes if apathy has prevented engagement and input.

New info has been added to ‘News’ (New Defence Minister …).  A recent interview suggests that “a careful, cautious approach” will taken to LAND 400.  A looming capability gap does not seem to have any significance as far as the new Minister is concerned.

The following letter has been sent to the 'Canberra Times':

Dear Sir,

 Congratulations to Hugh White ('Dive, dive, dive, Mr Abbott', Times 2, February 3, p1) for shattering the deafening silence which has surrounded Defence recently. Hopefully "local hip-pocket implications" will not be the principal determinant of pending equipment decisions. One of Army's highest priorities is to replace its fleet of ASLAV armoured reconnaissance vehicles. The urgency stems from the fact that a gap in operational capability will occur if introduction into service of the new vehicle does not commence by 2020.

 What does a capability gap mean? In short … consequences which can be counted in soldiers' lives. By 2020 the ASLAV will have been in service for nearly 30 years. It is no longer possible to extend this period by upgrade or modification. Not only will operational deployment jeopardise the safety of crews and those being supported, but the same dangers apply to use of the obsolescent vehicle during training exercises. Of course, the capability gap also means the loss of skills needed for the conduct of successful ground operations.

Industry was told last year that a request for tenders would be made in early January 2015. The Defence Materiel Organization's website now states that Kevin Andrews will make an announcement "when his office has had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the program and related Government decisions". There is less than five years left to replace the ASLAV. Unless industry is involved now, a capability gap must eventuate, one which will cost dearly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 February 2015.  The 2015 Australian Defence Magazine Annual Conference is being held in Canberra on 10 February.  Sadly, Army is noticeably absent from the list of speakers (and topics):

- Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Australian Defence Force

- Air Marshal Geoff Brown, Chief of Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force

- Harry Dunstall, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and General Manager - Commercial, Defence Materiel Organisation

- David Gould, General Manager - Submarines, Defence Materiel Organisation

- Dr Jens Goennemann, Managing Director, Airbus Group Australia

- Gerard Foley, Head of Strategy, Raytheon Australia 

- Dr Alex Zelinsky,Chief Defence Scientist, Defence Science and Technology Organisation

- Dr Mark Thomson, Project Director Budget and Reform Program, Australian Strategic Policy Institute

- Rohan Stocker, Chief Executive Officer, Marand 

The agenda () advises that the Minister "has been invited".  This is a great opportunity for significant announcements affecting industry to be made, eg. LAND 400.  Will it happen?  Sadly, my prediction is that it will not.  It's my belief that the Department of Finance is holding sway as far as such matters are concerned.  Five days to go.

A new post has been added to ‘AWM Photo Captions : Cavalry Vietnam’.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 6 February.  The letter to the Canberra Times re the delay in releasing the RFT for the ASLAV replacement was published today.  (See Archive for 4 February).  The paper gave it centre billing, and included a photo of the ASLV.  It will be interesting to see if it sparks debate, or better still, action from the Minister.

Land Power Forum.  For those not aware of it, this Forum () is run by Army (through the Defence web portal) to "provide a discussion space for informed analysis, commentary, thoughts, and ideas among military practitioners, interested stakeholders, subject matter experts, and deep thinkers".

I noticed that one author referred to the need to attack the enemy's Centre of Gravity (COG), as advocated by Clausewitz.  I noticed also, in another article, reference to limited wars such as the protracted counterinsurgency operations in Vietnam.  One cannot but contrast the two.  In many cases the ability to strike at the enemy's COG will stretch the constraints of limited war.  The use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is generally regarded as being beyond accepted 'limits'.  The assignation of world leaders is also in this category.  If armies are to strike at the enemy's 'heart', what capabilities do they need?  Forces capable of surprise and shock action are obviously at the top of the list.  Why, therefore, is the request for tender for LAND 400 Phase 2 delayed?

Rip Riley has commented re the 'Heritage' (Early Early Days) photo album.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 February 2015.  A new article has been posted, 'Shock Action : Not an Approved Term!'.  It's been submitted to the Land Power Forum (6 February).  The vehicle pictured is one manufactured by the Finnish company Patria.  They have teamed up with BAE to bid for LAND 400 Phase 2 (Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 February 2015. The first image in Lofy Harris’ photo album (posted under ‘Heritage’) may well be historically significant.  It is a coloured photo of the only Australian Cruiser (ACIII) built, now housed (in an unrestored condition) at the AWM. (Compare the casting number on the front, BK AH 88, with the AWM photo).   For those undertaking restoration, a photo showing the tank in its contemporary paint finish and markings could be incredibly valuable. While this is just the front view, ‘Lofty’ may well have others. The AWM has been informed of the existence of the photo, just in case.  Additional info re the tank has been posted on the ‘heritage’ page

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 9 February 2015.  A new Article has been posted (also submitted to the Land Power Forum): ‘Mine Countermeasures‘.

I’ve been asked a number of times what the RAAC Corporation are doing to advance the interests of the RAAC, its regimental associations and serving members.  Who knows?  Maybe a lot, maybe nothing.  Unfortunately it seems to be a closed shop.  The committees of RAAC Corporation member associations may know, they’re just not informing their members.  Then again, maybe they don’t know either (and maybe the rest of us don’t ‘need to know’).

Interestingly, while there’s been nothing posted on the Corporation’s website since November 2014, an officer at Victoria Barracks Brisbane has been constantly “standing by” to receive donations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 February 2015.  Good news!  The AWM have advised that they have another seven log books, in addition to the six that have been taken into their Collection as historic records already.  As opposed to the latter six, the others are for tanks which were not used in Vietnam … although mostly used as range targets (as were all the others).  Despite the tanks not having 'operational service', the log books are to be accessioned as soon as priorities allow.

Interesting, one of the AWM log books is the same ARN as the only book held by the Tank Museum.  Inquiries have been made to establish the correct numbers.  Three others are for tanks at Puckapunyal.  (This leaves nine log books unaccounted for re tanks in the Museum or elsewhere at Puckapunyal.)

Details re the Operation SLIPPER (Afhanistan) Welcome Home parades are at    Hopefully the RAAC Corporation might co-ordinate RAAC aspects (or at least ensure that an Association takes the lead in each State).

Congratulations to Ron Shoebridge and Andrew Hine who were appointed to the positions of President and Secretary of the RAACA (NSW Branch) at the special AGM last week.  In speaking to the meeting, Rob set out an action plan and associated priorities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 February 2015.  Under 'Queries' (Protected Mobility : CSSB Vs RAAC Role?) the following question is asked: "So theoretically, the tasks of a PMV sub-unit within a CSSB or a light cavalry regiment, are the same.  The question remains the same, is this the case in practice?  If the tasks assigned to a light cavalry regiment are more hazardous than those assigned to a CSSB, do the RAAC crews receive appropriate training?"  This has been answered in part by the latest edition of the Army Newspaper.  The School of Transport stated that the RACT don't have crew commanders, but utilise an 'ancillary operator' to look after comms, weapons, etc; the whole convoy being under the command of an appointed 'packet commander'.  Furthermore. they state that they "do basic driver course and any other tactical considerations for using the PMV will come under a different training management package". Where will this new "training management package" be conducted (and by who)?

It was also asked under 'Queries': "So where do the ARES stand: provider of protected mobility or dismounted cavalry scouts?" Army's website refers to Light Cavalry Regiments as those: "units that can operate either in a mounted or dismounted role.  The units are equipped with either the Light Cavalry Patrol Vehicle and the Interim Infantry Mobility Vehicle (IIMV) or the Bushmaster.  A Light Cavalry unit’s manning and equipment enable it to conduct a variety of tasks including reconnaissance, surveillance, offensive, defensive, security, peace keeping and support operations."  The quotes below are from Army's website.  According to this, 1/15, 12/16, and 10LH operate with Bushmasters, but 3/9 and 4/19 are limited to Landrovers.  When the following question was posed at the RAAC Corporation AGM: "what about the promise of Bushmaster to the GRES?"; the (majority) agreed response was that they: "need to concentrate on the trade and skills for which they can be paid - Cavalry Scout, which is not vehicle-dependent".

Where are our ARES Regiments left standing?  How do IIMV fit within the role of " reconnaissance, surveillance, offensive, defensive, security, peace keeping and support operations."  If it's 'support operations' let's ensure that crews are trained expertly.

(All the above has been incorporated into an 'Article' (Protected Mobility)

1/15 RNSWL.  "In mid 2006, 1/15 RNSWL converted to its current Light Cavalry role and today operates with Land Rover Surveillance and Reconnaissance Vehicles and Interim Infantry Mobility Vehicles."

3/9 SAMR.  "… currently operates Land Rover four wheel and six wheel drive vehicles."

4/19 PWLH.  "Recently it was re-roled from an armoured personnel carrier unit operating M113s, to a light cavalry unit operating modified Landrover four-wheel drives. This was in line with the Army wide restructure of the Reserve units of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC)."

 12/16 HRL.  "It is currently a Light Cavalry Scout unit and equipped with Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 February 2015.  I’ve heard it said that matters related to equipment and force structure should be left to the guys in uniform.  While the sentiment can be appreciated, is the right thing to do?

Is ‘expert military opinion’ exactly that, or is it military opinion shaped by political exigencies?  One of the submissions to the 2015 Defence White Paper (see ‘Articles’) argues that the recent emphasis on special forces is penalizing the ADF in terms of its conventional force capability.  A retired general argues that the emphasis comes about because, in political terms, special force ops are seen as always being likely to incur fewer casualties than the employment of conventional forces.  If unbiased military advice was to be accepted, this would be seen as a fallacy.

Of course sometimes, military advice is not unbiased.  There are vested interests in all organizations, but the military rank structure has a greater potential to stifle alternative viewpoints.  The situation is much better today than it was previously.  The Army’s combined arms approach and encouragement of debate, mitigates the power of parochial elements.  Nevertheless, entrenched viewpoints remain and rational arguments are sometimes squashed.

The RAAC Corporation has undertaken to “prosecute and lobby on issues at the highest level of Government and the Army leadership”.  It is to be hoped issues related to equipment and force structure as they impact on the RAAC, will not be excluded.

Rip Riley has some interesting comments under ‘Heritage’.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 February 2015.  Congratulations to the RAACA (NSW Branch) and its new President Rob Shoebridge for investigating what they can do to give a special welcome to the RAAC Continent in the Sydney Afghanistan Welcome Home Parade on 21 March.   Elsewhere it's been quiet.

While there's never been any news from the RAAC Corporation; the Australian Defence Force Association, the Office of the Defence Minister, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) all seem to have been lying 'low'.  Question is … will things stay this way until the Budget?  Is it true that everyone is waiting to find out how much the Government will remove from Defence spending and what projects will be cut?

Although LAND 400 Phase 2 (Combat reconnaissance Vehicle) has supposedly been approved by the Expenditure Review Committee, the new Minister has been 'reviewing the situation' since coming to Office.  A gap in the ADF's operational capability is almost unavoidable and we all (or we should) know what this means.

Nothing heard re the 10 Light Horse Association's AGM.  They were hoping to hold it in conjunction with a commemoration of the Centenary of 10LH's sailing to the First World War.

In 'News', the award of the OAM to Raymond John Rouhan is included with other awards made to serving RAAC personnel on Australia day, 2015.  Elsewhere on the site, Bluey Lowe has commented on the most recent photo in 'AGM Photo Captions : Cavalry Vietnam').

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 14 February 2015.  The 3/9 SAMR Association are to be congratulated on their initiative to introduce a scholarship to enable a SAMR member to spend two weeks with the Queen's Royal Hussars (the amalgamated QOH and QRIH), their affiliated Regiment.  What a great way to promote the armoured corps spirit!  Also to the Association's credit, they have decided to "take a greater interest and advocacy in today's Reserve matters", seeing this as important to maintaining the relevance of their Association to both young and old members.

A slight quibble with the 3/9th guys, however.  They say that "In 2014 the RAAC Corporation with the assistance of a number of similarly impacted ex-service organisations was largely responsible for restoring the black beret to the Corps".  In fact, the Chief of Army's announcement re the lifting of the restrictions re the wearing of beret was made in 2013.  (The CA mentioned to me that the forceful representation made by serving soldiers was the main factor in his decision.)

To the credit of the RAAC Corporation, however, in 2014 they seem to have been successful in reversing Army's intention to have 10LH and 3/9SAMR squadrons swap their regimental badges for Corps badges, should they come under command of infantry battalions within their brigades.  (See 'Current Issues : RAAC').

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 February 2015.   You can be lucky.  Stocks of books on the tables at the Lifeline Book Fair are periodically replenished.  As I was looking at the Military section, a small cache of armour literature was unpacked: 'The World Encyclopedia of Tanks & AFVs', Fogerty, 2006; 'Tank Facts and Feats', Macksey, 1974; 'Tank vs Tank', Macksey, 1988; 'The Illustrated Guide to AFVs of the World', Livesey, 2006, and 'Vietnam Tracks', Dunstan, 1084.  All for $18.00!  Looking at the latter, I noticed that the M60 AVLB was used in Vietnam.  Which brought me back to this photo at the AWM.

The caption is incorrect, in that it's not a Centurion bridgelayer.  (See 'AWM Photo Captions : Cavalry Vietnam'.)  Originally it was thought to be a M48 AVLB and the question was asked whether this should be referred to as an M48A2.  Comments indicated that the AVLB was always designated as simply 'M48'.  It seems that the same applies to the M60 AVLB.  The question now becomes, is the vehicle pictured an M48 AVLB or an M60 AVLB?  It was taken around November 1967, which suggests it was before M60 AVLBs were deployed to Vietnam.  But is this correct?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 February 2015.  In relation to the topic 'AFV/PMV for GRES', the RAAC Corporation minutes state that "the GRES need to concentrate on the trade and skills for which they can be paid - Cavalry Scout, which is not vehicle-dependent".  It is now evident, however, that PMV are being issued to all Reserve Units.  (The Army website info which states that 3/9 SAMR and 4/19 PWLH are equipped with only Regional Force Surveillance Vehicles and Land Rovers, needs updating.

So Reserve RAAC Units have two roles which they may be called upon to fulfill by their Brigade Commander: Cavalry Scout and Protected Mobility.  There are some fundamental questions here.  Firstly, the roles are very different … one undertaken by reconnaissance/surveillance vehicles; the other, transport vehicles.  How does a unit train for both?  Do individual brigades set the priority for training?  (If so, how are training standards set for different light cavalry regiments trying to fulfill different priorities?)

Secondly, as previously reported (see Article 'Protected Mobility'), the School of Transport only do basic driver PMV training.  The RACT don’t have crew commanders on their vehicles, but utilise an ‘ancillary operator’ to look after comms, weapons, etc; the whole convoy being under the command of an appointed ‘packet commander’.  Apparently "any other tactical considerations for using the PMV will come under a different training management package”. Where will this new “training management package” be conducted (and by who)?  Will it provide adequate training for RAAC PMV crew commanders?  Why isn't there any debate on this?

[pic]

“The role of the Surveillance and Reconnaissance variant is to provide highmobility

“The role of the Surveillance and Reconnaissance variant is to provide highmobility transport to Regional Force Surveillance Units for conducting wide area surveillance tasks. The vehicle, when on patrol, will normally be operated by three personnel, comprising of a Driver, Co-Driver and Rear Observer.”  (DMO, LAND 121; photo MB)

If readers had the chance, it would be great if they could call in to their local RAAC ARES unit and ask to see their latest vehicles.  The Unit is sure to welcome such interest and feedback here would be most interesting to others.

RE COF stocks … I had cause to buy another copy last week.  The publishers had only one at their premises and thought that there ‘might be’ a couple of others in the warehouse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 February 2015.  The headline says it all: "The government 'just has to bite the bullet' and slash spending". (Canberra Times, 14 February 2015.)  Savings in the order of $65 billion have to achieved by 2023-24.  The March State election in NSW could turn up the pressure on the Government.  How are the 'cuts' going to be determined?  Presumably each portfolio will be told how much they have to give up.  In Defence's case, how will it determine its priorities?

The ARES has already been hard hit … stripped of its AFVs and given B vehicles. (For the purists among us, the Bushmaster is more correctly deemed a transport vehicle, certainly not an AFV).  Is there anything left to cut in terms of our ARES units?  If not equipment, maybe it'll be back to the drastic cuts in the number of paid training days of a few years ago (specified in an earlier post).

Other possibilities include reduced track miles and ammunition for training (effectively meaning a reduction in the number of vehicles in unit establishments).  This happened at 1st Armoured Regiment when B Squadron were training to replace C Squadron in Vietnam in 1968.  The situation came about because budget cuts meant that stock levels had to be reduced to the extent that there was insufficient ammunition and repair parts to support the squadron in Vietnam, at same time as the squadron training to replace them.  Are we to be faced with the same ludicrous short-sightedness again?

Where is the debate?  What is the RAAC Corporation Inc doing?

RE COF stocks … I had cause to buy another copy last week.  The publishers had only one at their premises and thought that there ‘might be’ a couple of others in the warehouse.

17 February 1967.  Forty eight years since the first Australian AFV was lost to enemy action since the Second World War (M113A1, 21Bravo; Geoff Strachan, WIA and Vic Pomroy, KIA).  Up until this point military planners only considered tanks to be of value in terms of providing mobile pill boxes for the defence of the 1ATF base.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 February 2015. "Now the government is arbitrarily changing specs for our new armoured vehicle project ….".  'Canberra Times', 17 February 2015.

"Specs" is not thought to apply to specifications for the vehicles themselves, but to the timing of the project.  In a letter to the' Canberra Times' from armouredadvocates last week (which was given centre stage with a photo of an ASLAV), it was emphasized that a capability gap will arise if the Request for Tender for LAND 400 Phase 2 (ASLAV replacement) is not issued as a matter of priority.  (See 'Articles', LAND 400.)  The journalist was criticizing the Government's indecision regarding Defence projects and the extent to which this is affecting national security.

It seems that well informed Letters to the Editor on subjects important to readers, can help influence public opinion (the ultimate 'game changer' in terms of government decisions).  This raises the question, is the RAAC Corporation bound too much to the 'party line'?  Maybe the Corporation's directors feel that it's better to work 'behind the scenes', than create any sort of public profile …

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19 February 2015.  Some people are interested in numbers, and stats are always interesting.  In the two months that armouredadvocates has been operating, different topics have been viewed 2645 times, with readers across fifteen countries.  One obvious deduction from this is that there is an imbiding interest in 'armoured' matters.  Why then do associations not attempt to communicate more with their members more and keep them informed and up to date?  Of course there is a work load involved.

3/4 Cav Regt Assn probably have the best Forum and it's a credit to them that they provide 'real time' information to their members.  Some Association have News pages on their website, but these are not updated regularly, nor do they provide opportunity for feedback from members (of course some association c'tees might not want this).  Earlier comment to this end was provided in Future of 1AR Assocation. (See 'Articles'.)

A new post has been added to 'News' re Army's impending purchase of six M88A2s (presumably to provide the support needed by three dispersed ACR tank squadrons, as compared to that required for a regiment on a centralized basis.)

|According to the Defence website: () the M113AS4 is to|

|remain in service until 2050 (see below). |

|Eighty five years is one hell of a Life of Type.  There are likely to be budget restrictions and delays with approvals for |

|LAND 400 (especially re Phase 2, the ASLAV replacement), but 85 years is simply ridiculous in terms of crew safety (during |

|BOTH training and operations).  Armouredadvocates has asked Defence to clarify and is awaiting a response.  Previous public |

|audit info re LAND 106 was that M113A1 were to all be withdrawn by 2010 and M113AS4 were to commence being withdrawn by |

|2025-26.   Defence info re LAND 400 is that: |

|"The IFV will replace the M113AS4 beginning in 2025. The M113AS4 LOT is expected to last as long as 2030 but its 'fit for |

|purpose' suitability is decaying given current and emerging threats. It is not expected to be deployable for anything other |

|than low intensity/low risk missions beyond 2025." |

|Is it going to be the ARES that carry the can again? |

|M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier |

|[pic] |

|The M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers have provided the Australian Defence Force with a protected mobility capability since |

|the Vietnam War. A comprehensive upgrade is currently underway to enhance the capability and extend the service life of the |

|M113 fleet through to 2050. |

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

|21 February 2015 |

|"… the GRES need to concentrate on the trade and skills for which they can be paid - Cavalry Scout, which is not |

|vehicle-dependent".  Minutes, RAAC Corporation Inc AGM, October 2014. |

|"It will be important to ensure that there is a clearly articulated role for the ARes RAAC which will inform the employment |

|categorisation and that appropriate resources are made available to properly implement the protected lift capability within |

|the Reserve."  RAAC unit commander, January 2015. |

|Just what is going on with the RAAC Ares?  The armoured advocates Article 'Protected Mobility' raises a number of questions: |

|Firstly, the roles (light cavalry scout and protected mobility) are very different … one undertaken by |

|reconnaissance/surveillance vehicles (or no vehicles in a dismounted capacity); the other, transport vehicles.  How does a |

|unit train for both?  Do individual brigades set the priority for training?  (If so, how are training standards determined |

|for different light cavalry regiments trying to fulfil different priorities?) |

|Secondly, as previously reported in armouredadvocates, the School of Transport only do basic driver PMV training.  The |

|RACT do not have crew commanders on their vehicles, but utilise ‘ancillary operators’ to look after comms, weapons, etc; the |

|whole convoy being under the command of an appointed ‘packet commander’.  Apparently "any other tactical considerations for |

|using the PMV will come under a different training management package".  Where will this new “training management package” be|

|conducted (and by who)?  Will it provide adequate training for RAAC PMV crew commanders? |

|[pic] |

|The Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicle.  Photo: Army-Technology |

|Some units are trying to use Bushmaster vehicles to provide training for mounted combat.  Unit vehicles, however, are subject|

|to brigade 'call ins' to support exercises.  Limited availability, means limited training.  At least one accident involving |

|an ARes PMV has already occurred.  How long will it be before others follow? |

|The following questions are relevant:  What support capacity are RAAC Ares units to provide the ARA … protected lift, light |

|cavalry or both?  Is this determined on an overall ARES basis or is it something for brigades to decide?  With respect to the|

|protected lift role undertaken by RAAC Ares units, is this the same as that provided by CSSBs?  If not, how does the RAAC |

|role differ from that of CSSBs where vehicles are under the control of 'packet commanders'?  If there is a difference, eg. |

|the vehicles have a crew commander, how is training (and assessment) for this role to be standardised across the ARes to |

|ensure competency and safety?  What recourse does an ARES unit have to resist 'call ins' for their PMVs from their brigades? |

|Where does the training/safety nexus lie in this respect? (A copy of the above has been sent to the President, Defence |

|Reserves Association.) |

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

|22 February 2015 |

|[pic] |

|Photo: Defence Industry Daily |

|Copy of request made to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)" |

|In Audit Report No 34 2011-12 Performance Audit the ANAO stated that, following it's upgrade under LAND 106, "M113AS4 are to |

|commence being withdrawn by 2025-26". Defence, however, presently state that a "comprehensive upgrade is currently underway |

|to enhance the capability and extend the service life of the M113 [M113AS4] fleet through to 2050."  |

|()  |

|This 25 year difference is a major variation, given that the above ANAO report states that "the upgraded M113 does represent |

|an improvement on the older, un‐extended vehicle. However, a vehicle that was considered fit‐for‐purpose when the minor |

|upgrade was first proposed 20 years ago now lags behind armoured infantry vehicles in use with other armed forces, and is |

|vulnerable in many current threat environments, leaving Defence with an acknowledged capability gap".  |

|I asked DMO to advise, however they stated that I needed to contact "Army as they make the decision on when a capability is |

|withdrawn from Service, not DMO."  I've since emailed mediaops at Defence, asking them to pass my request to the relevant |

|area in Army (as per DMO's advice), however, haven't had an acknowledgement.  Can you help resolve this matter please. |

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

|23 February 2015.  Armouredadvocates mentioned some time ago that the Project Manager for LAND 400 was Ms Sarah Myers.  |

|Presumably she will be leading the industry briefing in Melbourne on 11 March 2015 (to answer questions concerning the RfT |

|for the ASLAV replacement announced on 19 February 2015.  Who, however, is Ms Myers 'boss' … the person who has to 'sign off'|

|on the project team's recommendations? |

|Major General Paul McLachlan, AM, CSC was appointed as the DMO’s Head of Land Systems in January 2013.  (Not to be confused |

|with Major General 'Gus' McLachlan, see 'News' under.)  Having completed two years in the position, it's likely that an |

|appointment change-over is 'in the mix'.  MAJGEN Paul McLachlan is a gunner, whose bio details published by DMO include the |

|following: |

|"In January 2011, he commanded Joint Task Force 637 in the Queensland flood response and was awarded the Conspicuous Service |

|Cross for his role.  In 2010, as the Commander of the Brisbane based 7th Brigade, he was responsible for the force |

|preparation of two Mentoring Task Force rotations into Afghanistan and the digitisation of the brigade.  MAJGEN McLachlan’s |

|overseas deployments have included operational service in Iraq, where he was the Joint Task Force 633 Operations Officer and |

|also in the Solomon Islands coup, where he commanded the evacuation and military support efforts." |

|BTW.  For those not aware, LAND 400 has a project name: Destrier. |

|The following info is compiled from Wikipedia:  The word destrier refers to a type of horse: the finest and strongest |

|warhorse.  These horses were bred and raised specifically for the needs of war.  The best-known war horse of the medieval |

|era, the Destrier was described by contemporary sources as the Great Horse, due to its significance in carrying knights in |

|battle.  Interestingly, Wikipedia also states that: "A good destrier was expensive". |

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

|24 February 2015.  The following email was sent to the Chief of Army yesterday.  A few hours later Army’s webpage was amended|

|to refer to the service life of the M113 fleet as lasting until 2025 (rather than 2050).  This was not a change of policy as |

|such; rather a change to Army’s public position. |

|“Dear General, |

|Congratulations to all involved with the announcement last week regarding the Request for Tenders for LAND 400 Phase 2 (ASLAV|

|replacement). |

|You are reported as saying that “the new vehicles were planned to start entering service by 2021 to suit new fighting |

|conditions. The modern battlespace is a much more lethal environment than it was when the ASLAV came into service in the |

|mid-1990s.  The demands that are placed on us will mean we will say goodbye to the ASLAV and replace it with a more modern |

|vehicle that will provide those essential capabilities well into the 2030s.” |

|I draw you attention to Army’s website () which states|

|that “The M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers have provided the Australian Defence Force with a protected mobility capability |

|since the Vietnam War. A comprehensive upgrade is currently underway to enhance the capability and extend the service life of|

|the M113 fleet through to 2050.” |

|As you’re aware, the M113A1 came into service in 1965, 30 years before the ASLAV.  The idea of it remaining operationally |

|capable for 85 years, even with modification and upgrade, is just not feasible.  When the Audit Office reported on the M113A1|

|Modification program in 2011/12, it noted that “M113AS4 are to commence being withdrawn by 2025-26″, before going on to say |

|that while “the upgraded M113 does represent an improvement on the older, un‐extended vehicle … a vehicle that was considered|

|fit‐for‐purpose when the minor upgrade was first proposed 20 years ago now lags behind armoured infantry vehicles in use with|

|other armed forces, and is vulnerable in many current threat environments, leaving Defence with an acknowledged capability |

|gap”.  |

|Can you please review the 2050 timing which would extend this ‘acknowledged capability gap’ by 25 years. |

|Many thanks, Bruce Cameron” |

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

|25 February 2015.  One of the photo captions at ‘AWM Photo Captions : Cavalry Vietnam’ refers to the loss of 83Alpha during |

|Operation HAMMERSLEY, 45 years ago.  The AWM quickly corrected the caption in acknowledgement of the bravery of those |

|involved. |

|At the time, two APC Sections were involved in an attack on the Minh Dam Secret Zone: 83 Section (Cpl Ron Macey) and 31 |

|Section (Sgt Rex Harris).  ‘Blackie’, the crew commander of 31Alpha, is presently visiting Vietnam.  The following is taken |

|from his post on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Forum:  |

|“I have just been back to the site of Barry and Hugh’s unfortunate contact.  I was there on the day as 31A.  The locals now |

|call it Death Valley.  It was very different going back there but everything about it was just as I remembered it…  There is |

|only one house in the valley and the rest is just as we left it.  Heaps of bush and not much agriculture on the northern side|

|of the Long Hais.  Had to persuade the driver to take us in there and walk a fair stretch”.. |

|Acoustic Neuromas.  Few will have heard the term, but it relates to head and neck cancers associated with high powered radio |

|waves.  During research for COF, I came across a number of RAAC members who had experienced tumours of this type (many of |

|which were subsequently fatal).  Given that these amounted to what I regarded as a high number, I wrote to the Chief of Army.|

|Previous research undertaken by DVA into brain tumours suffered by RAAC personnel showed a 40% increase compared to that |

|expected by the cohort group.  I pointed out that I was concerned about a particular group of RAAC personnel, those who used |

|radios to the maximum extent and those whose AFV crew function meant that they were either using radios and/or were close to |

|antennas or their reflective surfaces.  Figures related to this more specific group showed almost a 100% increase compared to|

|that expected by the cohort group. |

|I was assured that the safety environment surrounding today’s RAAC AFV crewmen was subject to a much stricter set of |

|guidelines.  Armouredadvocates will follow up on this as a priority issue.  Any relevant info would be appreciated. |

|‘Heritage’ features a new photo from Roger Tingley. |

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

|26 February 2015.  Further to armouredadvocates earlier posts, what is going on with the RAAC ARES? |

|Army's website () provides the following info re the |

|Reserves: "Under Plan BEERSHEBA, the Army Reserve will consist of six brigade-sized formations within the 2nd Division with |

|units, sub-units, teams and individuals integrated within Army's Combat Support and Combat Service Support brigades. The 2nd |

|Division formations will be paired, with each pair aligned to, and on the same Force Generation Cycle as its partnered |

|full-time Multi-role Combat Brigade. |

|In each 'Ready' year, the paired Army Reserve formations will be required to produce a battalion-sized group which may be |

|used in its entirety or as a 'capability brick' by the 'Ready' Multi-role Combat Brigade commander for operational |

|deployments or in major exercises.  In order to fulfil the enduring annual Army Reserve capability requirements, the generic |

|structure of the 2nd Division formations developed for Plan BEERSHEBA include, the re-roling of all Army Reserve Royal |

|Australian Armoured Corps units to the production of Bushmaster crews …". |

| The website also provides info re each RAAC ARES unit: |

|4/19 PWLH (4 Bde): …recently it was re-roled from an armoured personnel carrier unit operating M113s, to a light cavalry unit|

|operating modified Landrover four-wheel drives.  |

|1/15 RNSWL (5 Bde): …operates with Land Rover Surveillance and Reconnaissance Vehicles and Interim Infantry Mobility Vehicles|

|in the Light Cavalry role.  |

|12/16 HRL (8 Bde): … currently a Light Cavalry Scout unit and equipped with Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles.  |

|3/9 SAMR (9 Bde): … consists of a Headquarters and three Troops; a Protected Mobility Troop, a Mounted Reconnaissance Troop |

|and a Dismounted Reconnaissance Troop".  Equipment comprises the Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, and the Land Rover, |

|Regional Force Surveillance Vehicle. |

|3/4 Cav Regt (11 Bde): … to be re-raised as an ARES unit.  |

|10LH (13 Bde): … operates Land Rover Regional Force Surveillance Vehicles (RFSV) and 6x6 Interim Infantry Mobility Vehicles |

|(IIMV) in the light cavalry and reconnaissance roles.  |

|The Minutes of the 2014 RAAC Corporation AGM state that: "the GRES need to concentrate on the trade and skills for which they|

|can be paid - Cavalry Scout, which is not vehicle-dependent".  How does this equate with Army's priority above for the |

|"production of Bushmaster crews"? |

|Was this edict issued prior to responsibility for the PMV being transferred to RACT?  PMVs are being issued to RAAC ARES |

|units, however.  Given that PMV training by the RACT is limited to drivers only (their transport role has vehicles operating |

|under packet commanders, there are no individual crew commanders), how are the PMVs to be operated by the RAAC and how is |

|training provided (other than for drivers)? |

|There has already been one accident involving a PMV rolling over during a night move, highlighting the risks associated with |

|employing inexperienced crewmen without the benefit of sufficient training. |

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

|27 February 2015.  No post, welfare honours, Sydney.  ('Honour' is the only word I believe is appropriate when visiting dying|

|mates and their families; such time can never be seen as a 'duty', nor a 'responsibility'.  I was honoured to be allowed to |

|spend time, however brief, with these wonderful guys.) |

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

|28 February 2015.  LAND 907 Phase 2 "is to continue the land force warfighting advantage afforded by LAND 907 Phase 1 through|

|delivery of enhancements in knowledge, lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability of the M1A1 Main Battle Tank to |

|its LOT of 2030".  Does this include replacement of gas-turbine engines with drop-in diesels? |

|Reasons for: (i) fuel consumption is very high; (ii) heat signature makes tanks vulnerable; (iii) heat output limits |

|proximity of infantry, especially in built up areas; and (iv) turbine maintenance costs are high.  Reasons against: (i) high |

|initial replacement cost.  Interestingly, the 'Future Capability Discussion Paper Two: Army Land Combat System (2014)" states|

|that "Supportability [of the M1A1 Abrams] will be enhanced through tank engine upgrades". |

|Re the previous post 'What is going on with the RAAC ARES?' …. "the School of Armour is currently instructing 10x RAAC Army |

|Reserve officers on the Light Cavalry ROBC.  This course is the culmination of 6 weeks of Light Cavalry training for these |

|officers in order to effectively command a Light Cavalry Troop.  The five RAAC Reserve units across Australia currently |

|operate with Bushmaster PMV, Land Rover 4x4 and 6x6, however in future they may operate the Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon 6x6 |

|Surveillance Reconnaissance Vehicle (SRV)" (SOA Facebook page.) |

|Presumably the course qualifies troop leaders to command both a dismounted light cavalry troop and a mounted light cavalry |

|troop.  (One wonders if infantry instructors were involved in the training for the former.)  What about the ARES protected |

|mobility role?  Ideally a troop leader in a light cavalry regiment would be qualified to command all three types of troop.  |

|But the roles are so fundamentally different, is this feasible?  Is an officer trained to command B vehicles in a |

|reconnaissance role, also qualified to command PMVs in a protected mobility role?  The accidents could rapidly increase if |

|these competencies were not confirmed. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download