1 March 2015 - armouredadvocates
1 March 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 4×4 and 6×6, however in future they may operate the Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon 6×6 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.
—————————————————————————————————————
2 March 2015. Ministerial Happenings. On 26 February, the Minister for Defence stated that “Marching alongside [on the Welcome Home Parade] will be a number of Afghans who were formerly employed with Australia’s mission.” Wouldn’t it have been great if those like Sgt Sonny Vo, the ARVN interpreter who served with 3 Cav in Vietnam, had been granted a visa, rather than being forced to commandeer a boat to escape (bringing other refugees with him).
The CEO of DMO announced his resignation last week. The Defence Minister referred to Mr King’s “retirement” in a statement to Parliament. Why do there have to be these little nuances? There has been a report that Mr King is ill; on the other hand, maybe he was ‘fed up’ with political indecision. If Kevin Andrews was open (within the limits of privacy) then everyone would be much happier.
The Minister visited HQJOC (near Bungendore) last week. He was briefed on the co-ordination of Defence support re the recent cyclones in Qld and the NT, saying: “The ability of JOC to maintain 24/7 over-watch on Defence’s operational deployments demonstrates that we are well poised to look after Defence’s people on operations and respond to short-notice incidents. The Government commends the ongoing work of Defence and other government agencies posted to HQJOC.” It’s nice to see credit being given to the ADF in this respect (so often it’s taken for granted, or worse).
Why don’t journalists ask THE questions? At a press conference in Melbourne on 20 February, the Minister said: “So let me stress that submarines are an essential component of Australia’s naval capability“. No-one asked: ‘Why?’. It seems as if the submarine requirement is taken for granted. The Chief of navy followed and stated that: “we cannot have a capability gap”. No-one asked ‘What would a capability gap mean?’. In a similar way, no-one appeared to be interested in what a capability gap resulting from a delay in replacing the ASLAV would actually mean. Hencearmouredadvocates efforts in this area … see ‘Articles’ (LAND 400)
————————————————————————————————————-
3 March 2015. What’s happening with the RAAC ARES?
This question has been asked many times by armouredadvocates and yesterday the situation was discussed with the Defence Reserves Association.
This is what Army says about the ARES in terms of Plan BEERSHEBA: “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 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…..”.
There are currently five ARES RAAC units; two in NSW and one each in WA, SA, and Vic. These unit locations are matched by ARES brigades, apart from 11 Bde in Qld. In accordance with the Plan, B Sqn, 3/4 Cav Regt is to be re-raised as an ARES unit to provide this capability. Or is it?
It’s been suggested that Support Sqn at the School of Armour Puckapunyal is to be renamed B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt. If this were to happen, the ARES structure as announced under Plan BEERSHEBA would no longer be viable. Possibly a revised ARES organisation is to be announced as part of the 2015 Defence White Paper?? Watch this space!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
4 March 2015 M113A1 : Fifty Years with the RAAC!
What an achievement! The first vehicles ordered (following the trials) arrived in 1965. Subsequent purchases saw Australia’s fleet rise to 766 vehicles (including all variants). During its service to date, M113A1s have been deployed on ADF deployments to Vietnam, East Timor, Somalia and Rwanda.
LAND 106, M113A1 Upgrade program (final cost amounting to around $1 billion) involved 537 vehicles.
It has been published in defence industry media that “Maintenance records classify the vehicles as ‘Fully Functional'; ‘Restricted Use'; or ‘Unserviceable’. Over the three years to December 2010, the proportion of vehicles at the School of Armour classified as ‘Fully Functional’ decreased from an average of 62 per cent in 2008 to 38 per cent in 2010. Since 2010, this has not improved: Defence advised that as at 19 March 2012 the proportion of vehicles classed as ‘Fully Functional’ was 39 per cent across Army. (Defence Industry Daily, 28 May 2012.)
When the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) 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, unextended 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”.
What have we learnt? The first M113A1 crews were trained and the deployed to Vietnam, before radios/IC were fitted. Although the first Centurion crews were deployed to Vietnam with upgraded tanks, they had not had the opportunity to train with the modified equipment; they too, had to ‘learn on the job’. Given that the M113AS4 (in the view of the ANAO) currently constitutes a capability gap, is our preparedness to undertake operations any the better today?
There are good reasons to think that it is. These are all vested in the skills and professionalism of those managing LAND 400 and commanding our operational forces.
——————————————————————————————————————————
5 March 2015. Miscellaneous ‘Bits and Pieces’.
4/19 PWLH Guidon Presentation. The new Guidon was to have been presented on 29 March 2015. The governor-General is no longer available, however, and the presentation has been deferred.
Centurion Log Books. Information has been received that all the log books for the Cents both within the Museum and at the SOA used to be held within the Museum. Where have they gone? That for ARN 169056 was provided to the AWM by the Museum in 2008 when the Cent was moved from the parade ground to Canberra. How is it that all the others have been ‘lost’? Was it because this subject was being discussed on the 1 Armd Regt Assn Forum, that the Forum was closed down (following a confidential compliant and the inference of legal action against the Assn)?
Welcome Home Parade Afghanistan Veterans. According to the Defence info re Canberra : “A free sausage sizzle will be offered to serving and ex-serving veterans and their families based on first come, first served. This will be held at Remembrance Nature Park and will be conducted by volunteers from the local community.”
All the 1AR ACT C’tee Rep has to do is organise the banner to be positioned at the Remembrance Park, together with a few members to welcome home ‘those who have come after’. The Assn might also approve a few dollars to provide a beer or two to the RAAC Afghan veterans post march. This would seem a very worthwhile use of a tiny amount of the $40,000 in the Assn bank account (including the $10,000 from the sale of my COF).
1 Armd Regt Assn Website. This has undergone change, possibly because members have asked… “There is no Forum, how do we know what’s happening? If you go to there is information on the Home Page as to what has been added to the ‘News’ page.
RAAC Corporation. What’s being done on behalf of the members (ie. the RAAC Associations)? Fingers crossed that the RAAC Corporation Inc will not start and end as one of those organisations where each AGM spends most of its time organising the next AGM and nothing is heard in between.
armouredadvocates. Tomorrow’s post and probably most of those to follow in the near term will be ‘strategic': e.g. why does today’s Army need the RAAC? (We can’t take it for granted!)
————————————————————————————————–
6 March 2015. Does the ADF Need Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs)? If so, What Type and How Many?
“Armour and the Australian Army must be one of the most uninformed policy and capability debates in recent Australian defence history…”. Michael Clifford, ‘The Strategist’, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)Blog, 2 March 2015
High White (Professor of Strategic Studies, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU) has suggested that Australia needs “…. a lighter army, with lighter, more readily deployable vehicles and more soldiers … would be much better suited to the demands they are most likely to face in our immediate neighbourhood”. Is this the operational requirement that the 2015 Defence White Paper will set out?
Last week Karl Claxton, an ASPI analyst, stated that “Most commentators have been hostile toward the project [LAND 400] from its inception a decade ago. The key complaint arises from a disconnect between strategic guidance in the 2000, 2009 and 2013 white papers, directing that equipment acquisitions be prioritised around what’s needed to prevent attacks against Australia and contribute to stability in our immediate region, and LAND 400’s focus on platforms for high-intensity contemporary and future operations including amphibious assault”.
How refreshing it is to see Michael Clifford’s (ASPI senior fellow) response to the above: “Let me state up front: the heavy/light and high-intensity/low-intensity debate is complete rot! Disconnected from strategic guidance? Again rot!”.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, what are the critical questions?
Why is a ‘standing’ Army needed when Australia is not threatened?
Should AFVs be part of this capability?
If so, what are the natures and characteristics of AFVs are required?
What number/type of AFV equipped units are optimum in the Army’s force structure?
What capabilities does the ARES require to support ARA contingency plans?
These will be addressed in turn, with ‘thoughts’ being used to develop the embryonic ‘2015 Defence White Paper’ article (See ‘Articles’). In time a ‘live’ forum, involving military and academic professionals, might be conducted along these lines.
————————————————————————————————————–
7 -11 March 2015. Posts are all shown under TODAY as they answer the above questions and come to a Conclusion.
—————————————————————————————————————–
8 March 2015. STOP PRESS. On 2 March, the armouredadvocates blog asked: Why don’t journalists ask THE questions? At a press conference in Melbourne on 20 February, the Minister said: “So let me stress that submarines are an essential component of Australia’s naval capability“. No-one asked: ‘Why?’ It seems as if the submarine requirement is taken for granted.
On 4 March, SKY News journalist David Speers posed the following question:
DAVID SPEERS: Finally – just on submarines, I wanted to ask you a back-to-basics question. What do you actually want from our next fleet of submarines?
KEVIN ANDREWS: Well, we need submarines that are going to have the capability to serve the nation in 15, 20, up to 40 years’ time.
DAVID SPEERS: Doing what, though?
KEVIN ANDREWS: Well, they do a range of things. They are the first-line deterrents. They have a very significant part in terms of intelligence gathering. We know that in 20 years’ time, probably half the submarines in the world will be in our region. So these are very significant military assets that we must have and we must have the best.
Is this a slip? Should the Defence Minister have confirmed that one of the primary functions of Australian submarines is to collect Intelligence (presumably by radio intercept)?
———————————————————————————————————————-
9-12 march 2015. Daily posts re the preparation of FUTURE of THE RAAC paper (now complete at ‘Articles’.
———————————————————————————————————————
13 March 2015 Back to normal! The draft of the paper, Future of the RAAC, is now complete and posted in the ‘Articles’ category. Many thanks for everyone’s input. Where it goes now is still to be decided. I’d thought that the RAAC Corporation might like to circulate it as a discussion paper, but it’s just been discovered that the RAAC Corporation has been established to deal with Welfare matters ONLY.
“The Corporation is not tasked to organise the manning or deployment of the ADF. It is to represent the welfare of all RAAC personnel and seek the betterment of conditions e.g. the reinstatement of the Black Beret, the latest bunfight over pay and allowances and the deterioration of benefits and the scurrilous indexing of pensions and payments…”. (President, 3/4 Cav Regts Assn)
The fact that the RAAC Corporation is only set up to deal with welfare matters does not come clear through either the Constitution or the AGM Minutes (in fact, the Minutes of the last AGM deal with a whole range of RAAC organisation and equipment matters). This seems to me to be a pity, especially as there are major issues concerning the RAAC ARES units (some of which were discussed at the last RAAC Corporation AGM.). I’m already discussing these with the Defence Reserves Association, so I guess I just deal direct with individual units and circulate my paper on the Future of the RAAC or discussion/feedback.
Speaking of the Paper, it is interesting to note that the theme of the keynote address at last year’s RAACA (NSW) Cambrai Dinner was “a picture of a corps [RAAC] in 2014 where all units regular and reserve work together to deliver the reconnaissance, shock action and protected mobility essential to the defence of our nation”. Just how is it again that the RAAC regular and reserve work together?
Postscript. The post on the 3/4 Cav Regts Assn Forum referred to above was mysteriously removed last night . (Interestingly, while the 3/4 Cav Regts Assn is a member of the Assn, it’s the only Assn which does not have a representative on the Council. Probably not right to make too much of this.) At the same time the post was removed, my membership rights were cancelled. At 3pm today my rights were restored and I put up a post attempting to confirm the situation re the RAAC Corporation’s objectives. Watch that space (or not).
——————————————————————————————————————
`14 march 2015. I’m a bit slow in posting today. On behalf of a mate who’s dying of bone cancer, I’ve been researching the military service of his grandfather. What a story! This man put his age back by 10 years to enlist in Oct 41. After recruit training, he was posted to 2/105 General Transport Company, AASC. These guys had had just been landed in Java (Feb 42), on return from the ME. Not long after, they were ordered to surrender. His trail as a POW leads to Singapore (Changi) then to the Thai-Burma Railway. He was demobilised (a delightful phrase) at Watsonia in 1946.
The following post has been added to ‘News’
Australian Strategic Policy Institute ASPI) to Hold Land Force Conference in June.
It was originally reported that the 2015 Defence White paper was to be delivered in April; recent information from Defence now shows just “2015”. Just as well the RfT for LAND 400 Phase 2 didn’t become caught up with it, as the Department of Finance wished.
Interestingly the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), see below, has an important role in the Defence White paper process. The Minister has established an Expert Panel to provide independent advice to him re the White paper. Of the six members , the chair and one other, are from ASPI.
ASPI is an independent, non-partisan think tank that produces expert and timely advice for Australia’s strategic and defence leaders. ASPI generates new ideas for government, allowing them to make better-informed decisions for Australia’s future. ASPI is one of the most authoritative and widely quoted contributors to public discussion of strategic policy issues in Australia and a recognised and authoritative Australian voice in international discussion of strategic issues, especially in the Asia-Pacific. ASPI was established by the Australian Government in 2001 and is partially funded by the Department of Defence…. (ASPI website)
Apart from anything else, the reason for interest is that Michael Clifford (a senior fellow at the Institute) recently observed that: “Armour and the Australian Army must be one of the most uninformed policy and capability debates in recent Australian defence history…”. what, one wonders, will the standard of debate be like in June at ASPI’s Land Force Conference—‘Army’s Future Force Structure Options’.
Will this be before or after the delivery of the 2015 Defence White Paper? A Force Structure Review is to underpin the White Paper. Matters related to LAND 400 phases 3 and 4 and the RAAC ARES may already have been decided. Hopefully the Land Force Conference might be held prior to the White Paper, with an opportunity to influence the outcome. Otherwise it might be case of either head banging or being wise after the event..
——————————————————————————————————————-
15 March 2015. What a day! Posts have recently been placed on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) website and 3/4 Cav Regts Assn websites in an attempt to encourage interest in, and debate about, RAAC matters of today. The vitriolic nature of some of the resulting exchanges makes it clear that this is a lost cause. Armouredadvocates will keep well away from these sites in the future.
Welcome Home Parade. Great to see Graham Edwards calling on RSL members in Perth to line the route and cheer! Not to mention the post Service free bbq and drinks.
The following has been added to ‘Current Issues : RAAC Associations’.
RAAC Corporation: Purpose? (15 Mar 15) Last week, a member of the RAAC Corporation Council stated that the Corporation existed ONLY to “represent the welfare of all RAAC personnel and seek the betterment of conditions e.g. the reinstatement of the Black Beret, the latest bunfight over pay and allowances and the deterioration of benefits and the scurrilous indexing of pensions and payments…”.
This was seemingly contradicted two days later by the Chairman who stated: “Quite plainly if the RAAC as represented by HOC, DHOC or Corps RSM does not have an issue for the Corporation to apply its external advocacy, then it follows that the Corporation will not act own-motion [sic]. To do so would be sheer folly.” The Chairman left open the nature of issues. One has to wonder how likely it is that the Head of Corps will go outside the chain of command and ask the RAAC Corporation to advocate on its behalf. Not being able to be seen to be totally independent, obviously limits any advocacy position that can be adopted.
(Tomorrow. A new category will be added: ‘Watching Brief (Issues of Concern)’. This will list matters adversely affecting or with the potential to adversely affect, the RAAC.)
——————————————————————————————————————
16 March 2015.
A new category has been created to immediately follow Housekeeping:
“Watching Brief (Issues of Affecting the RAAC)
RAAC ARES Role: augment ARA or different? (2015 Defence White Paper)
RAAC ARES equipment for role: When will it be provided? (White Paper):
RAAC Training in WA: Any at all? (White Paper)
LAND 400 Phase 3 and 4: Approval? (White Paper)
Crew Commander Training for Bushmaster Should it be done at SOA?
Using Bushmaster to conduct training for armoured warfare: Should it be done? Is it safe?
ASPI Land Conference: ‘Army’s Force Structure options’ (June)
2015 Defence White Paper”
A new post has been added to Heritage (go there to see photos):
Heritage Being Preserved. David Kirkpatrick was WIA while serving with B Sqn 3 Cav (see ‘Canister! On! FIRE!‘, Vol 2, p90/91). His brother (Greg) manages a palm oil plantation in the RAMU Valley (New Guinea). Over many years he has uncovered WWII items ranging from aircraft engines, almost a hundred unexploded 25 pounder shells, to (now) what is assumed to be an Australian field workshop. (In one case, the items initially uncovered were such that a team came from Japan to excavate the site.)
David explains: “It is some history that would never have been discovered but for his rather dogged determination to unearth the past. They are of course being carefully restored/cleaned and catalogued prior to going to the museum he has established so they are well looked after and protected.”
This post will provide updates as Greg develops the Museum and identifies the items recovered. Re the latest site, the RAEME SO2 (HOC) has advised that Greg should consider that the site might have been more than (just) a workshop … it’s quite possibly the location of a major logistics area; in which case field hospital items might also be found. (Thanks John)
——————————————————————————————————————
17 March 2015. ‘Canister! On FIRE!’ Reprint At the launch last night by Maj Gen ‘Gus’ McLachlan (see ‘News’) of ‘The Ottoman Defence against the ANZAC Landing’, Big Sky Publishing advised that they’ve placed an order for a limited reprint of COF to meet immediate needs. These copies should be available in around six weeks. Interestingly, Big Sky have also recently established distribution operations in the UK and US. This will minimize what were previously prohibitive postal costs. Depending on orders from these centres, a second edition may be possible.
Heritage Being Preserved. The following has been added to yesterday’s post:
A check of the AWM Collection revealed that two workshops operated in the RAMU Valley in 1943: WORKSHOP PLATOON, 53RD AUSTRALIAN FIELD PARK COMPANY, ROYAL AUSTRALIAN ENGINEERS, 7TH AUSTRALIAN DIVISION; and 129 BRIGADE GROUP WORKSHOPS. This seems to back up the advice from RAEME HOC that a logistics base might have been located in the area. The RAE and Museum of Australian Army Military Engineering are following up. The photo is of sappers with the Workshop Platoon, 53rdAustralian Field park Company.
Quotes
Michael Clifford (ASPI Senior Fellow)” “Again (as I said recently) this is not about low-intensity or high-intensity operations. It’s about designing an Army force structure and skill set which offers government the best and broadest set of policy options to enable them to meet our national needs.” ‘The Strategist’, 13 March 2015
Andrew Davies (ASPI Senor Analyst for Defence Capability):.“For the ADF, it doesn’t much matter where in the process the delay occurs—late capability is the result.” ‘The Strategist’, 13 March 2015.
Of course, “late capability‘ more often than not means ‘capability gap’.
Jim Molan: “Even if an Australian government decided today to begin to meet its own aspirational 2% spend target for defence—a highly unlikely occurrence—it’d be years before the ADF would be in a position to achieve Australia’s national objectives in a modern battle, much less a modern war. And the longer we put off commencing adequate funding of defence, the harder it’s going to be to be better than anyone but our previous selves. ‘The Strategist’, 23 August 2013.
An update has been added to ‘News’ (Defence Reviews. Where Do We Stand?)
Postscript (16 Mar 15): Re the above para, it has recently been learnt that the RAAC Corporation is only interested in welfare matters (indeed it is limited to them by their Charter, according to one council member); and, in the unlikely event it happens, those issues the RAAC Head of Corps requests the Corporation lobbies for on his behalf. It seems a real pity that the Corporation has swapped ‘Independence’ for ‘official patronage’.
——————————————————————————————————————-
18 March 2015.
Apologies to armouredadvocates ‘followers’, I’ve just realised that I should finish all the updates inside the blog before amending and posting today’s ‘Housekeeping’. Each Housekeeping post is regarded as a new ‘publication’, therefore, messages are sent to ‘followers’. If I’m still updating the Categories, however, the Blog will probably not be accessible. From now on, I’ll do the updates first, then the new day’s Housekeeping post.
Queries The following has been added to Where are RAAC personnel Deployed?:
Members of. 4th /19th PWLH and 1/15 RNSWL are curently on active service as part of Transit Security Element (TSE) rotation 74 on Op Resolute. (See post for photo.)
Operation RESOLUTE is the ADF’s contribution to the whole-of-government effort to protect Australia’s borders and offshore maritime interests.
The ADF assets protect Australia’s maritime domain from security threats. These threats include:
▪ Irregular Maritime Arrivals;
▪ Maritime terrorism;
▪ Piracy, robbery and violence at sea;
▪ Compromise to bio-security;
▪ Illegal activity in protected areas;
▪ Illegal exploitation of natural resources (eg. illegal fishing);
▪ Marine pollution; and
▪ Prohibited imports and exports.
ADF resources allocated to Operation RESOLUTE include Navy Armidale Class Patrol Boats (ACPBs) operating daily throughout Australia’s northern offshore maritime areas; and a Transit Security Element (TSE) made up of Navy, Army and Air Force personnel who embark in the ACPBs; and
TSEs are specialist teams that are involved in what is often the most hazardous and politically sensitive aspect of the Operation: boarding and taking control of asylum seeker vessels.
Heritage. The following has been added to ‘Heritage Being Preserved’:
Following promotion of this story by armouredadvocates; the Army newspaper will be doing an article; the Australian Army Museum of Military Engineeing is watching closely re the items uncovered; the Australian Army Logistics Centre is interested in the possibility of a logistics base being uncovered; and it could be that the Ramu Valley Museum will be included in DVA’s intinerary for the party going to PNG to commemorate the 70th Anniversay of VP Day.
In terms of background info … it appears that a RAE field park company was established for every two or three engineer field companies in the division. The field park company held stores and equipment, as well as providing workshop support. It comprised three platoons: headquarters; stores, and workshop. Sometimes a bridging platoon was added, as seems to be the case with 53 Field Park Company in the Ramu Valley.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
19 March 2015.
News. The following post has been included ‘Opportunity Missed to Improve Treatment of Australia’s South Vietnamese ‘Allies’. (18 March 2015) Kevin Andrews, Minister for Defence: “During my meeting with Senior Lieutenant General Vinh, we discussed Australia’s defence cooperation with Vietnam. Our defence relationship currently focuses on education and training, English language training, peacekeeping cooperation, Special Forces cooperation and maritime security cooperation.”
Australian soldiers fought alongside South Vietnamese soldiers. Our former ‘allies’, particularly wounded ones, are now regarded, shamefully, by the Vietnamese Communist authorities, as undesirables. Buddhist temples are one of their few sources of help, with sympathetic monks giving them food.
A successful campaign was conducted a couple of years ago against an agreement proposed by the RSL with its Vietnamese counterpart. RSL members and the Vietnamese Community in Australia demanded that any such agreement be linked to improvements in the treatment of their former ‘brothers-in-arms’ and (in many cases re Australian Vietnamese) their relatives. The RSL withdrew their proposal without even trying discuss concessions; it seems that such a proposal was a bridge too far for the Minister Andrews as well.
2015 Defence White Paper In ‘Armour, Army and Australia’s Future Strategy’, 17 March 2015, ASPI’s Karl Claxton uses the term “globalists and regionalists”. This might be a way of categorising the thinking likely to be behind the coming Defence White Paper, however, there is no mention whatsoever of ‘lead times’ or ‘warning times’. These factors, surely, must dictate the thinking of defence strategists.
The armouredadvocates paper ‘The Future of the RAAC’ includes the following:
“The nature of the perceived ‘threat’ or ‘threats’ is important here. If only a single threat existed, contingency planning (which is why the ADF exists) would be relatively easy. But this will never be the case as long as there are unforeseeable threats. History can inform this consideration to some degree, however, technological advances mean that warning times are reducing. Paradoxically, some lead times are increasing. Relatively simple military arms of even a few years ago, have now been replaced with much more complex equipment, resulting in very different recruiting and training lead times.”
Karl has added to his position as articulated in the ‘Strategist': “So I suppose I’d be prepared to take a bit more of my risk—you’ve got to accept it somewhere—than perhaps you [ie. armouredadvocates] would in not being postured to quickly prepare to confront a very sophisticated adversary on land. I wouldn’t personally suggest we take our risk in regional ops which are very likely, are important, and could be difficult”.
Armouredadvocates view is that whatever the threat assessment (presumably a combination of ‘global’ and ‘regional’), the associated warning and lead times must inform the force structure (which must include the state of training, as well as the nature and quantity of contingency stocks).
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
20 March 2015
‘News’. The following has been added to Defence Reviews. Where Do We Stand?. (20 March 2015) The Canberra Times reported yesterday that staff at Defence HQ had been told that the Force Structure Review will call for an increase in the ADF. It seems that release of the Force Structure Review must be pending. Possibly the political ‘strategy’ is to release it before the Defence White Paper. What does ‘an increase in the ADF’ mean? One thing is certain, it does not necessary mean an increase in Army capability; in fact, it might involve a decrease in favour of the RAN or RAAF. As said yesterday, armouredadvocates hopes that the ‘force structure’ (what ever is decided upon) includes requirements regarding state of training, as well as the nature and quantity of contingency stocks necessary to meet the warning and lead times dictated by the threat assessment.
Quotes I : The following has been added: “DWP15 must match means to ends and provide the resources for needed capabilities. It must set the strategic direction in terms of: correctly interpreting Australia’s strategic circumstances and outlook; outlining priorities for capability and force structure planning; and emphasising priorities for international defence engagement. All three are critical to Australia’s interests.”‘Pressing Issues for the 2015 Defence White Paper’, Kokoda Foundation, Gary Waters, 28 February 2014
‘Current Issues : RAAC Associations’ The following has been added to Should the RAAC Corporation become a member of the Alliance of Defence Service organisations?: (20 March 2015) As far as armouredadvocates is aware, there has been no decision as to whether or not the RAAC Corporation should join ADSO. Some thoughts re this decision have been outlined above [ie. the Curent Issues post], Another view is offered by ADSO itself: “Many like organisations or ESOs share the ethos of ADSO but often baulk at the issue of public advocacy or lobbying as it is not in the experience of the individuals who take on leadership roles i.e. it is foreign to many ADF and former ADF personnel. If we are to advocate or lobby on behalf of our broad membership in the 21st century such reluctance needs to be overcome.” Corporation members have to consider the pros and cons of such a public profile STOP PRESS: Advice has just been received that on 16 March 2015, the RAAC Corporation voted to join ADSO as a Partner Organisation.
Quotes II
[pic] [pic] [pic]
More from the people above on 22 March 2015.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
21 March 2015.
‘Anzackery’. John Menadue’s blog ‘Pearls and Irritations’ () includes a contribution by David Stephens (Secretary, Honest History), entitled ‘Anzackery in the time of Anzac‘. The response from here is:
“There are extremes in the opposing views on any subject. David Stevens points this out when he refers to: irritable, pompous jingoism; hyperbole; and emotive rhetoric as being the hallmarks of the commemoration of those Australians who have died in defence of us and our country. He is, of course, equally guilty of both extremism and distortion of the debate surrounding how our Nation should most appropriately commemorate our war dead.
He argues that “Sentiment prevents us asking important questions about why we fight wars”. If we take a rationale approach to this, we must acknowledge that wars are fought to protect our national interests, and, as a democratic country, we elect representatives to decide on our behalf what our national interest are. If we are not prepared to debate the advantages and disadvantages of ‘democracy’, then we must avoid extremism and adopt an ‘understanding’ philosophy in expressing our viewpoint.”
Comments on previous posts concerning this subject can be found in Pearl and Irritation’s Archive under ANZAC.
‘News’. The following have been added:
Chief of Army’s Retirement. Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, will retire from his post in May after 36 years of military service, the Department of Defence says. In a statement, the Department said Lieutenant General Morrison would leave the Australian Army on May 15. It gave no indication when a replacement would be announced. The commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, Angus Campbell, is considered a likely replacement.
Welcome Home parade to Afghanistan Veterans. 21 March 2015. It was a bright sunny day in Canberra. The smiles on the faces of those marching showed they appreciated the presence of the large crowd that lined their route and clapped as they passed. The occasion affected those in the crowd as well. Sadly, only the Royal Australian Regiment Association Banner was there to proclaim ‘well done’ on behalf of the members of that Association. Congratulations to Bruce Scott for organising a ‘thank you’ from Armour in the West.
=============================================================================================
22 March 2015.
Honorary Colonels. The following has been added to ‘Current Issues : Unit Associations’ As mentioned above, 1/15RNSWL and 12/16 HRL now share a ‘Colonel Commandant’. This is in line with the regional arrangements that apply to other Corps, eg: RAA, Colonel Commandant Eastern Region; RAE, Col Comdt Southern Region; and RAEME, Col Comdt Vic-Tas. As above from the RAAC Corp, DG-Pers has reduced RAAC hon cols from nine to six. Without 3/4 Cav, there are eight RAAC units. With 12/16 and 1/15 combined, which other unit misses out if only six hon cols are approved?
Heritage . New post:
AWM Tank Footage ‘Tracks on Srpckets’. This compilation (intended as a ‘demo’ re the footage available in their collection) shows tanks in Australian ‘usage’ from Sentinel to Sheridan. Many thanks to Giles Waterman for this link.
Heritage Being Preserved. More to add to this story:
The 53rd Australian Field Park Company RAE arrived in New Guinea in late 1943. At this stage the Allied aim was to advance across the Finisterre Ranges to Madang. The 7 Div engineers were primarily involved road and airfield construction and maintenance. Interestingly, there was a shortage of pipes to make culverts and the sappers improvised using 25 pdr shell cases and drums of various descriptions. Another comment from this time was that the Ramu valley was particularly bad as far as malaria was concerned.
Early in 1944, it was decided that American troops would take over from the Australians (firstly on the Huon Peninsula and secondly in the Ramu Valley). This is believed to have happened in the Ramu around May. It is to be expected, therefore, that some US military items will be found among the Australian ‘finds’.
Quotes.
David Murphy, 3 Cav (Vietnam) Forum in relation to an armouredadvocates post:[pic]
“WE DONT NEED ALL THIS GO ARMY CRAP ANY MORE WERE [sic] ALL OVER IT!!!!!” [It seems that David is one of those who have requested that their details not be included on the Vietnam Nominal Roll; his email is listed as ‘private’ and his PM facility is ‘disabled’.] Sorry David if we’ve upset you. There is no doubt that an advocacy body will never please all the people all the time, nevertheless, anyone who is upset is an important reason to reflect on ‘ways and means’. Thank you for your input.
————————————————————————————————–
23 March 2015.
News’ The following has been added: Next RSM-Army “CHIEF OF ARMY IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WARRANT OFFICER CLASS 1 DON SPINKS, OAM HAS BEEN SELECTED AS THE 10TH REGIMENTAL SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY, WITH EFFECT 11 JUL 15.”
From an interview in Jun 2013: “WO1 Don Spinks [then Command Sergeant Major, Forces Command] joined the Australian Army in 1979 at the age of 17. Born and raised on a dairy farm at the junction of the Hunter and Goulburn Rivers, the Army presented him with something he wouldn’t find milking cows: world experience. In his 34 and a half years of service [now over 36 years] he’s probably found plenty of that.”
WO1 Spinks was promoted to WO1 in January 1999 and the following year was selected to attend the US Army Sergeant Majors Academy at Fort Bliss, Texas. Apart from RSM Forcomd, WO1 Spinks has also held the following appointments: RSM 2 Cav; RSM Multinational Force and Observers – Sinai, Egypt; RSM RAAC; RSM 1st Brigade; and RSM JTF 633 (Operation Slipper).
As an RAAC contemporary of his commented at the Welcome Home Parade on Saturday, “He’s been doing it [ie. being a first class RSM at every level] for a long time AND he’s a great bloke”.
———————————————————————
Quotes. The following has been added:
Paul Quentin, 3/4 Cav Regt Forum, on an armouredadvocates post pointing out the situation[pic]
affecting the RAAC ARES: “Again? Still? Listening to you is akin is doing your own dentistry.” [According to Paul’s LinkedIn entry he served in the Army from 1981–87 and is now a transport operator.] Armouredadvocates’ advice to Paul: ‘Don’t read things aloud’
———————————————————————–
Notes: (i) A new category is to be created: ‘Brickbats and Bouquets’ … the above will be included (as will that from yesterday). (ii) There are so many things to report, it means that the ‘housekeeping’ aspects of updating/archiving old posts etc is on the backfoot. Thanks for everyone’s encouragement, I’ll try to keep up.
———————————————————————–
24 March 2015
“Litigation Threatened”. Following the publication of the March 2015 1 AR Assn newsletter, I’ve been asked why “litigation” was threatened (an extension of the story above). Because the matter is regarded as ‘confidential’ by the 1AR Assn (possibly one of the criteria associated with the threat of legal action) nobody outside the 1AR Assn C’tee (and their inner circle) knows. I’ve tried to explain below:
“What happened was that, in 2014, a former member of 1AR sought info re the history of a Centurion that had been purchased by a museum. He posted a message on the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum (website). Research showed that the only source of info was the log book. The chap who’d bought the tanks from the Army was contacted and he said that he’d sold all the logbooks to a private collector on a confidential basis. He was asked if he could pass a message to this person to let him know that any info about this particular tank would be really appreciated by the museum. Nothing was heard in response and queries were subsequently raised as to why a collector would keep such ‘history’ purely to himself (/herself). (Even if writing a book, one would think that he could communicate privately to help a museum in such circumstances.)
Around this time, the Forum was shut down. No warning, just closed … the stories associated with years of previous posts (some from members since deceased) were completely lost. When asked, the explanation was that the Forum was costing too much and the Assn could not afford to maintain it. Later enquiries revealed that, in fact, there was no cost to the Assn. It then came to light that a “formal” complaint had been made. When asked what it was about, the response was that the complaint was confidential and no further information could be provided. The March 2015 Association Newsletter states the Forum was closed because content was “offensive and was not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to”; litigation was threatened..
A total lack of natural justice applies as far as Forum users were concerned. All are tarred with the slur of posting material which is both “offensive and not representative to the standard and value that the Association abides to”; yet none can defend themselves. The connection with the private collector of Centurion logbooks is speculative, but no other topic was being discussed at the time. This scenario recently deepened when it was discovered that logbooks for tanks which had not been sold by Army, had gone ‘missing’ from official holdings (including that for ARN 169106, one of Australia’s most ‘historic’ Centurions). In terms of the Association’s ‘standards and values’ , one might’ve thought that helping to preserve the history of one of the RAAC’s AFVs was something that exemplified the Associations’ standards and values.
‘Armouredadvocates’ was been established as a direct result of the above circumstances and will continue its course until natural justice is brought to bear on behalf of the Association’s own members.
—————————————–
RAAC Corps Conference (now the RAAC Capability Conference) is to be held at the School of Armour during 27–29 March 2015. Hopefully the following matters (fromarmouredadvocates ‘Watching Brief’) will be considered:
RAAC ARES Role: augment ARA or different? (What of Project Suakin?);
RAAC ARES equipment for role: When will it be provided?;
Infantry/Armour Training in WA: Any at all?;
Crew Commander Training for Bushmaster: Should it be done at SOA? and
Using Bushmaster to conduct training for armoured warfare: Should it be done? Is it safe?
—————————————
‘Queries': Where are they deployed? The following has been added:
“Elements of our Regiment [2/14 LH QMI], including the Headquarters and C Squadron, have been warned for a short notice deployment to Iraq on a training mission for local forces. We congratulate the Regiment on being selected for this important role and wish the CO and all deploying members a successful and safe tour. We look forward to news as the task unfolds.” (2/14 Assn Newsletter, March 2015) Armouredadvocates wishes all those involved best wishes for a safe and speedy return … and offers ‘thanks for your service’.
———————————————————————–
25 March 2015
50th Anniversary of Second Era National Service. The info given in the ‘Diary Dates’ is confirmed. A commemoration of the commencement of the Second National Service Scheme will be held at the AWM, Canberra, on 30 June 2015. The GG has been invited to review a march past commencing at 10 am, followed by a service at the NS Memorial. A bbq is to follow. Corps/unit associations are encouraged to held reunions. More details at nashosecretary@.au
Quotes. The following have been added:
Greg Walters, Former President of the Australian Society for Defence Engineering in theCanberra Times, 23 March 2015: “Frank and fearless examination only strengthens our democracy, and it is abundantly clear that our national defence capability is worthy of this debate”.
Mitchell Yates, The Future Army — the debate rolls on, ‘The Strategist’, 24 March 2015: “Briefly on the topic of armour, Australian soldiers deserve the best in force protection measures and I happen to agree with Michael on the limitations of ‘light’ forces. The Australian Army which went into East Timor in 1999 was a hollow shell of light infantry which completed its mission because, in the words of Peter Cosgrove, ‘we were lucky’.”
———————————————————————————-
26 March 2015. No post … interstate funeral.
————————————————————————————
27 March 2015.
Chief of Army Appointment. As foreshadowed: “Tony Abbott today [26 March 205] announced changes to the nation’s armed service chiefs, with Lieutenant General Angus Campbell who headed up Operation Sovereign Borders set to become the next head of army from May 16.“
‘Armour and the Australian Army’ Debate. Some readers might recall ASPI’s Michael Clifford’s observation that: “Armour and the Australian Army must be one of the most uninformed policy and capability debates in recent Australian defence history…”. Reading the recent contributions to ‘The Strategist’, Armouredadvocates believes that Michael has helped energised this debate and very worthwhile contributions are now being made.
LAND 400 The following will be added to the LAND 400 article (a work in progress):
Quote: “LAND 400 is central to a force structure determined … by the diffused lethality and complexity of contemporary operating. The project is driven by … the necessity to provide soldiers the protection, situational awareness and weapon systems necessary to undertake peacemaking, post-conflict reconstruction and combat operations in increasingly messy, hybrid, irregular conflicts. Ben James, Director General, Project Land 400, ASPI ‘The Strategist’, 4 March 2015.
The above quote has been modified ( … ) to remove the comparative aspects, ie. what LAND 400 is NOT about, so as to focus on what it IS.
LAND 400 Phase 2: DMO advise: “MOTS & MOTS Plus • Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) means equipment that: – is already established in-service with the armed forces of another country or Australia; – is sourced from an established production facility (not just a Military Off The Shelf design); and – requires at most, minor modifications to deliver interoperability with existing ADF and/or allied assets •
The DMO Request for Tender for LAND 400 Phase 2 advises “Seeking Qty 225 (indicative) CRV Fleet to fulfil 7 combat roles: – Reconnaissance and Counter Reconnaissance – 129 – Command and Control – 26 – Joint Fires – 8 – Surveillance – 17 – Ambulance – 15 – Repair – 20 – Recovery – 10″
What is a “Joint Fires” vehicle you might ask? It seems that the full designation is actually ‘Joint Fires Control’ vehicle. The LAND 400 Concept of Operations (available on the Internet) includes the following definition:
“Close Combat – Joint Fires Control (CC-JFC). This task co-ordinates the provision of Joint Fires; provides dedicated Line of Sight observation; and supports the effective engagement of targeting intelligence throughout the spectrum of conflict. It [ie. a joint fires control vehicle] must be capable of operating in the direct fire zone, intimately with manoeuvre forces.”
——————————————————————————————————–
28 March 2015.
Digital war archive replaces the old letter home UNSW and ABC Radio have collaborated on a major digital archive providing unprecedented access to the personal experiences of Australian veterans who served in Afghanistan. Retrospect: War, Family, Afghanistan () explores the impact of the war on the lives of six former Australian Defence Force personnel and their families through six ABC radio documentaries, a dedicated website, and an immersive digital archive at UNSW’s iCinema.
Featuring previously unseen footage shot on location for ABC TV, personal interviews and striking portraits by internationally renowned photojournalist Stephen Dupont, the project is enhanced by personal photos and videos provided by the veterans. The result is a nuanced portrayal of how war is experienced in the era of digital communication.
The iCinema exhibition, to be opened later this year, will give visitors access to a vast digital database of veteran and family memories, which can be collated using artificial intelligence in UNSW’s award-winning 360-degree 3D cinema.
Thanks to Derrill de Heer for this story.
Afghanistan Welcome Home Parade. Congratulations to Bruce Scott (the 1AR Assn WA Rep) and former 1AR guys (including Mick Rainey, Bob Snape, John Sanderson, Rob Millsteed, Anthony (Wombat) Wilton, Pat Deeker and Monte Montefusco) who displayed the 1AR banner near the saluting dias as a very visible acknowledgement of, and appreciation for, those who served on our behalf. Others who made themselves known included Baden Jeffery (‘Milo’ 1971) and Mr and Mrs Simpson, the parents of the current 1AR RSM. (Sadly Baden’s health is reported as not being too good.)
‘Armour and the Australian Army’ Debate. I commented yesterday that very worthwhile contributions to an understanding of the subject have started to be made. However, I came across one article which prompted the following response:
“I can’t understand your assertion that: ‘On the other hand, anti-armour weapons are becoming more prevalent and more capable, while casualty and risk phobia in Canberra seems unlikely to abate’. My difficulty is trying to imagine anything akin to ‘a casualty and risk phobia’.
Have you ever led soldiers in an attack against an enemy force? Somewhat differently, have you ever commanded soldiers in an attack against an enemy force? If you had in either case, I’d be very surprised if you’d place ‘casualty and risk’ in the context of “a phobia”. It’s a commander’s fundamental duty to achieve the military objective with which he is tasked, with the minimum of casualties. How can this be regarded as a phobia? A leader of men obviously has the same purpose. I could elaborate, but I think the above makes the point.“
Making Comments on armouredadvocates. Comments can be made on any of the topics by clicking on the grey rectangle in line (on the right) with the topic heading. Unfortunately comments made on the Housekeeping topic will disappear as that topic is reposted each day. This is not the case with comments on other topics.
Articles. Unfortunately this topic has been AWOL for a couple of days … an update on one of the articles resulted in the whole topic ‘crashing’. Will be back up soon.
———————————————————————————————————————
29 March 2015
New RSL (NSW) President. Armouredadvocates doesn’t know exactly when he assumed the position, but nevertheless congratulates Major Rod White AM RFD (Retd) on becoming NSW RSL State President. Rod served in Vietnam with 3RAR in 1971 and is certain to appreciate the value of armour.
LAND 400 “The systems proposed for acquisition under LAND 400 are too large and heavy, and they come with significant opportunity cost …”. ‘LAND 400: It’s About the Enablers’, Solomon Birch, Army logistics officer, ‘The Strategist’, 27 March 2015. Descriptive words such as ‘large’ and ‘heavy’ do not contribute to the debate. The internal volume of an AFV comes from, amongst other things, the requirements for the number of crew, plus the quantity of ammunition to be carried. The weight of an AFV is determined primarily by the internal volume, the protection level and the mobility required. There is little to be added to a debate by alleging that an AFV is too large or too heavy, without linking this to the operational requirements. It is these that merit debate.
1AR Assn State Reps. The reports from some State Reps in the March 2015 1AR Assn newsletter show are a credit to them and the Assn. What a pity reports from some State Reps are missing.
Heritage. The following has been added:
Maj A.J. Bolingbroke, 5 LHR, RECOMMENDATION (from This day in the RAAC, thanks to Major John Baines):
At Gaza on the 26th March 1917. This officer, with two troops, pushed forward to a position North-West of Gaza and rushed an artillery observation post, capturing the personnel and instruments of the post. He then led his party and took an active part in the bayonet charge against Turkish entrenchments in the village. He accounted for five Turks with his revolver. He showed conspicuous gallantry throughout the day [and was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)].
“This report contains news of Maj A.J. Bolingbroke – grandfather’s close friend Archie Bolingbroke. They were as thick as thieves – grandad was his Squadron Commander with the 5LHR on Gallipoli. He lost an eye in this engagement. After the war, Maj Bolingbroke lived in the old house on the family property at National Park Road Nambour – a building which was later to become the club house for the first Nambour golf course.
Maj Bolingbroke then became postmaster at Woombye where he controlled the telephone exchange and he and grandfather would relive old stories of killing Turks and revisiting Gallipoli over the phone at no cost! Archie later become the manager of a bank in Gympie (I think). They remained very close friends. Mrs Bolingbroke (nee Burbidge)was sister of the Manager of the Bank of NSW in Nambour. Maj Bolingbroke’s DSO, Sam Brown, saddle, citations etc are on display at the Museum at Enoggera.” Thanks to Stephen Midgley (and Stu Rowland) for the above account of his grandfather’s mate.
———————————————————————————————————————
30 March 2015
Afghanistan.
(i) “Operation Slipper, Australia’s longest war, officially came to an end over the weekend with welcome home parades….”
The above quote gives the impression that Australia’s war in Afghanistan is ‘over’. Op Slipper, however, has been replaced by Op HIGHROAD (from ‘Queries’, see below):
‘January 1st[2015] marked the start of Operation HIGHROAD, Australia’s new train, advise and assist mission in Afghanistan. “About 400 Australian personnel are deployed on Operation HIGHROAD, including embed positions with the NATO led mission, mentoring and advisory roles, medical, force protection and logistic support.”
Saying that the war in Afghanistan is now over, is akin to saying that Australia’s war in Vietnam didn’t start with the deployment of the AATTV.
(ii) ” Defence Minister Kevin Andrews acknowledged the 263 Australians wounded and 41 Australian Defence Force members killed during the campaign in Afghanistan that started in 2001.”
As initially published, this quote referred to “263 Australians injured”. Armouredadvocates pointed out that ‘wounded’ was the correct term and the author/publication, very much to their credit, amended the wording accordingly.
Any reference to casualty figures raises questions. In terms of the 41 killed in Afghanistan, there were: 24 KIA (including Tpr David Pearce, 2/14 QMI); eight shot by Afghan national soldiers, ie ‘green on blue’ (including L/Cpl Stjepan Milosevic, 2/14 QMI); six killed in a helicopter crash; two DOW and one from “gunshot wounds”.
This says a lot about the professionalism of our Army today. There have been no deaths, for example, from illness; which in a country like Afghanistan with the likelihood of heat stress, is significant. The ‘green on blue’ casualties are the real concern. Measures will undoubtedly have been put in place to ensure that this is prevented during Op Highroad
Corps Conference (now called the Corps Capability Conference). It’s now over, will the following topics have been considered, and, if so, will the outcomes be made known publicly?:
RAAC ARES Role: augment ARA or different? What of Project Suakin?
RAAC ARES equipment for role: When will it be provided?
Infantry/Armour Training in WA: Any at all?
Crew Commander Training for Bushmaster Should it be done at SOA?
Using Bushmaster to conduct training for armoured warfare: Should it be done? Is it safe?
———————————————————————————————————————
31 March 2015.
2015 Defence White Paper. According to ASPI “The 2015 Defence White Paper, originally expected to be released in early 2015, has now been pushed back to the second half of the year and is expected in August”.
Senator Jim Molan? It was reported in October last year MAJOR General Jim Molan, who commanded allied troops in Iraq in 2004 and who co-authored the Coalition’s controversial Operation Sovereign Borders policy, will run for Liberal Party preselection for the Senate.
This was still his current thinking according to an article by him in the Lowy Institute’s Interpreter newsletter ()
The Defence Debate. In an article in the Lowy Intrepreter referred to above, Jim states that “A civilian analyst is arguing with several retired and serving officers about the future of the army and how it should be structured and equipped. The analyst does not agree with current defence policy as laid down by a conservative Coalition government, in which the Government wants the option to deploy land forces outside a narrowly defined region. Because this does not align with the personal view of the analyst, he decries the policy and the capabilities that enable it.”
This refers to an ASPI article about LAND 400 which is quoted in armouredadvocates article ‘The Future of the RAAC’. The debate here is at a stage where facts are being misrepresented to support opinions (not just by civilians). I’ve commented on the Lowy site as below, but will have more to say tomorrow re recent LAND 400 opinion.
Hi Jim.
It’s been put to me that you’re advocating that those who haven’t worn a uniform shouldn’t express views on defence matters … seems to me, however, that this is not your point at all; rather you’re suggesting that there is a dimension beyond accepting that ‘anyone who can analyse matters logically and rationally, can offer strategic guidance’, ie, as economic advice is best provided by those with an understanding of economics, so advice on defence strategy can best be provided by those with a background in the field. This is not to say that independent analysts cannot contribute useful input to the defence debate; however, their qualifications should be made known.
Best wishes, Bruce
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.