ISSUE 183 : Nov/Dec - 2010 - Australian Defence Force Journal

ConclusionWars and other conflicts requiring the deployment of military force are not often predictedwith any accuracy, and success in joint lodgement operations is often predicated on possessinga balanced force able to meet most, if not all, eventualities. For ADF joint entry operations,that will demand a mix of both air and maritime-delivered force in most credible scenarios.The loss of a functional and robust capability, such as the current conventional airborne force,seems inexplicable from a capability basis.This article has attempted to explain why the ADF should maintain the ACT. It will hopefullyprompt engagement with subject-matter experts as to what the conventional airborne forceis capable of and whether it has an integral place in the ADF’s renewed focus on joint entryoperations. The conventional airborne force alone is clearly not the solution to all of ourpotential joint entry operations of the present or future. Nor is any single ADF capability alonecapable of providing this—success will be predicated on balanced capabilities to project naval,land and air power. In a balanced ADF, the maintenance of an already-formed and frequentlytestedconventional airborne force, the Airborne Combat Team, is a sound investment for anunknowable future.Major Giles Cornelia has served regimentally with 3 RAR, instructed at RMC-D and held the staffappointments of SO3 Plans, HQ RMC-A and ADC to Commander 1st Division. His regimentalservice has included wide experience of airborne collective training as a rifle platoon commander,rifle company second-in-command, combat team commander and operations officer. He holdsa BA (History/Politics) and a Graduate Diploma in Arts (War Studies) from University College,University of New South Wales. His current appointment is Operations Officer 3 RAR.42