Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

That is a rubbish article. If a new subbie presented that to me as article written for professional development, he would get resubmit written across the top in big red letters.

I’ll just quote one sentence from it:

So IFVs may not be survivable in a future conventional war, and they may be poor value for the likely tasks the ADF will have to perform in the future in the near region.

That sentence attempts to sum up two thirds of the article, and it is entirely meaningless. Apparently IFVs may not be survivable in the future because they are vulnerable to ATGMs and tanks. Well, no shit. Everything has been vulnerable to ATGMs and tanks since the 60s. What has changed? By that logic, every single capability that is intended to go into the direct fire zone is obsolete. A dismounted infantryman is far more vulnerable to ATGMs and tanks than IFVs, so I take it we shouldnt invest in them either?

And apparently they may be poor value for likely tasks in the region. Firstly, he hasn’t attempted to articulate what those likely tasks are. He implies that all we are going to be doing is stability ops, but if that is the case we can get rid of half the capabilities in the ADF. A skim read of the white paper would indicate we aspire to far more than the ability to stabilise a pacific nation.

His logic here is at cross purposes. IFVs can’t be both too vulnerable on a modern battlefield, as well as Ill suited to likely tasks because it has too much combat power. It is one or the other.

As t68 has pointed out, he hasn’t actually attempted to offer an alternative, other than a couple of meaningless throw away lines. For example:

For example, it could allow the army to experiment with low-cost, disposable systems that don’t expose soldiers to risk and can be replaced cheaply. Or lighter, more deployable vehicles better suited for our near region.

What are these systems? If he knows of any magic low cost systems that don’t expose soldiers to risk, he should sell them to every nation in the world and make a fourtune. You might as well say the answer is hover tanks. He has a point with the follow up line, that lighter, easier to deploy vehicles might be better, but fails to articulate that, if heavily armoured vehicles are obsolete because they are too vulnerable on a modern battlefield, how could lightly armoured vehicles possibly be a better option?

Of course, the central logic of this article is applicable to everything else in defence. How much are we spending on JSF? How vulnerable are flying things to emerging technology, and how useful will they be in stability operations in the region? What about submarines? They are hardly going to be useful next time we have to stabilise a pacific nation.

 

[blueorchid]

Could do a US Military and use rail where possible to move them. The US Army & USMC use whole trains so have their own rail wagon sets.

The ADF already has the use of rail wagon sets for transporting tanks. Using them between Darwin and Adelaide, standard gauge.

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

That worked well when I was in the Army. Need an Iroquois allocated for the duration of an exercise on the Wednesday; get told that RAAF had a priority tasking and it wouldn't be available. Watch the RAAF football team members in their playing clobber hop aboard and head for Melbourne to play against our depleted team, then return sweaty and well lubricated about 5pm. One of plenty of dubious taskings in my time. At least it was only Aussie Rules.

oldsig

Army Aviation in many ways see themselves as separate to the rest of the army, sometimes because they believe themselves to be special and unique, sometimes because they see themselves as an unwanted red headed child. Interestingly they also have a sort of bi-polar thing going where they can't seem to decide whether they are soldiers who operate aircraft, or aviators who are in / support the army, that has been going on since at least since the Blackhawks were transferred to them.

That said, they are extremely professional and, like the RAN with the Collins Class, they are far more capable, efficient and successful than the average DF jouno realises. It is a simple fact that the ADF uses their gear much harder and at a higher tempo than most militaries, which tends to screw with the sustainment estimates.

 

[oldsig127]

Army Aviation in many ways see themselves as separate to the rest of the army, sometimes because they believe themselves to be special and unique, sometimes because they see themselves as an unwanted red headed child. Interestingly they also have a sort of bi-polar thing going where they can't seem to decide whether they are soldiers who operate aircraft, or aviators who are in / support the army, that has been going on since at least since the Blackhawks were transferred to them.

That said, they are extremely professional and, like the RAN with the Collins Class, they are far more capable, efficient and successful than the average DF jouno realises. It is a simple fact that the ADF uses their gear much harder and at a higher tempo than most militaries, which tends to screw with the sustainment estimates.

You have the wrong end of the stick Volko old mate, at least with respect to what I was saying. Our trouble getting an Iroquois to stay with the exercise during sports day was when we relied on the RAAF to provide them. The AAC Kiowas tended to be where they were supposed to be though. My experience tended to be that after the changeover we got far better service than before.

As for your second para, I could not agree more.

oldsig

 

[Takao]

Army Aviation in many ways see themselves as separate to the rest of the army, sometimes because they believe themselves to be special and unique, sometimes because they see themselves as an unwanted red headed child. Interestingly they also have a sort of bi-polar thing going where they can't seem to decide whether they are soldiers who operate aircraft, or aviators who are in / support the army, that has been going on since at least since the Blackhawks were transferred to them.

That said, they are extremely professional and, like the RAN with the Collins Class, they are far more capable, efficient and successful than the average DF jouno realises. It is a simple fact that the ADF uses their gear much harder and at a higher tempo than most militaries, which tends to screw with the sustainment estimates.

Hmmm.... not in my experience. They are most certainly the former.

I think any discrepancies in where they sit lay in large part with the placement of their 1-star (not Brigade Commander) under FORCOMD instead of AHQ. All the other capability managers report that way - leaving DG Avn serving two masters.

I'd also suggest their culture is superior when it comes to innovation, risk and promoting free thought. There are many things to take away, especially with the new CA's direction.

 

[Volkodav]

Hmmm.... not in my experience. They are most certainly the former.

I think any discrepancies in where they sit lay in large part with the placement of their 1-star (not Brigade Commander) under FORCOMD instead of AHQ. All the other capability managers report that way - leaving DG Avn serving two masters.

I'd also suggest their culture is superior when it comes to innovation, risk and promoting free thought. There are many things to take away, especially with the new CA's direction.

In my experience they are someway behind the RAN, in particular the FAA. There are disturbing number of silos and interestingly the issue seems to be more with the up and coming members than the newbies or the grey hairs. The newbies know they have a lot to learn, the grey hairs have seen and experienced a lot so they know they don't know it all, the up and comers honestly believe that they nearly know it all and if there was anything they didn't know, their boss would have told them and anyone saying any different is lying or delusional.

While their conviction is in some ways commendable the way they stick to their guns in the light of evidence to the contrary is a concern, it smacks of a degree of institutionalised indoctrination and a lack of free thought. That said I still believe they are very professional and capable, you just need to understand the mindset and be willing to do a little more research on anything they tell you as in my experience big picture is not their default setting.

 

[Takao]

In my experience they are someway behind the RAN, in particular the FAA. There are disturbing number of silos and interestingly the issue seems to be more with the up and coming members than the newbies or the grey hairs. The newbies know they have a lot to learn, the grey hairs have seen and experienced a lot so they know they don't know it all, the up and comers honestly believe that they nearly know it all and if there was anything they didn't know, their boss would have told them and anyone saying any different is lying or delusional.

While their conviction is in some ways commendable the way they stick to their guns in the light of evidence to the contrary is a concern, it smacks of a degree of institutionalised indoctrination and a lack of free thought. That said I still believe they are very professional and capable, you just need to understand the mindset and be willing to do a little more research on anything they tell you as in my experience big picture is not their default setting.

Is this Army Aviation you are describing? Or light infantry / 3 Bde / SOCOMD? Because it's as good a description of those as well. Especially the first two.

 

[Volkodav]

Is this Army Aviation you are describing? Or light infantry / 3 Bde / SOCOMD? Because it's as good a description of those as well. Especially the first two.

It may be whole of army for all I know but I hope its not. Then again it may be an age thing as I recall similar issues with the mid 20s to early 30s in many places I have worked, its just I did not experience to any real degree in the last couple of engineering organisations I worked with prior to this, though the staff were pretty much hand picked by highly experienced and highly competent managers.

The Navy has had a recent (mid to late 2000s) wake up call that has resulted in major cultural changes. There were cliques with very dangerous work practices that resulted in deaths. Elements thought they were above the rules, they were indispensable, irreplaceable and as such could make their own rules and decide who they would let into their clique and drive out anyone they thought didn't belong. They knew all the tricks to weed out those they didn't want and to protect those they did, even if what you saw happening was wrong you couldn't say anything in fear of the repercussions. Apply this to safety critical maintenance procedure and you can see the problem and the RAN found out first hand how serious it could be. End result they now have what is basically a no "d heads" rule, doesn't matter how critical your skills are, if your behavior or attitudes harms others you are a risk to everyone, you change or you are out. Make sense, look at the sporting codes that are doing the same, individual talent means nothing if the person with that talent degrades the performance of the team through their hobbling of team mates. The thing the navy has found is since silencing the bigmouthed d heads, many of those they used to bully and overshadow have actually turned out to be more talented, capable and contribute far more than the d heads ever did.

The army still has a way to go but I can see the work has started, there are still lower level officers and junior NCOs permitting and making excuses for unacceptable behavior, still dirty tricks being used to undermine and exclude members who are perceived as being unworthy, i.e. the wrong background. The thing is though once senior levels become aware of issues action is swift and appropriate, they are sick to death of losing diggers, whether it discharging or far far worse. What needs to happen is junior leaders actually need to learn to think more for themselves and ask frigging questions when they hear or see something that appears contradictory or otherwise not quite right. They need to stop assuming their boss has given them the full picture as their boss may be assuming that they are aware of things that they are not and that disconnect can be disastrous.

 

[Takao]

It may be whole of army for all I know but I hope its not. Then again it may be an age thing as I recall similar issues with the mid 20s to early 30s in many places I have worked, its just I did not experience to any real degree in the last couple of engineering organisations I worked with prior to this, though the staff were pretty much hand picked by highly experienced and highly competent managers.

The Navy has had a recent (mid to late 2000s) wake up call that has resulted in major cultural changes. There were cliques with very dangerous work practices that resulted in deaths. Elements thought they were above the rules, they were indispensable, irreplaceable and as such could make their own rules and decide who they would let into their clique and drive out anyone they thought didn't belong. They knew all the tricks to weed out those they didn't want and to protect those they did, even if what you saw happening was wrong you couldn't say anything in fear of the repercussions. Apply this to safety critical maintenance procedure and you can see the problem and the RAN found out first hand how serious it could be. End result they now have what is basically a no "d heads" rule, doesn't matter how critical your skills are, if your behavior or attitudes harms others you are a risk to everyone, you change or you are out. Make sense, look at the sporting codes that are doing the same, individual talent means nothing if the person with that talent degrades the performance of the team through their hobbling of team mates. The thing the navy has found is since silencing the bigmouthed d heads, many of those they used to bully and overshadow have actually turned out to be more talented, capable and contribute far more than the d heads ever did.

The army still has a way to go but I can see the work has started, there are still lower level officers and junior NCOs permitting and making excuses for unacceptable behavior, still dirty tricks being used to undermine and exclude members who are perceived as being unworthy, i.e. the wrong background. The thing is though once senior levels become aware of issues action is swift and appropriate, they are sick to death of losing diggers, whether it discharging or far far worse. What needs to happen is junior leaders actually need to learn to think more for themselves and ask frigging questions when they hear or see something that appears contradictory or otherwise not quite right. They need to stop assuming their boss has given them the full picture as their boss may be assuming that they are aware of things that they are not and that disconnect can be disastrous.

Quoted for truth - and I couldn't agree more. It is something we are drumming on at work at the moment, culture trumps laws all the time.

I am in the fortunate position of having good friends at both ends of the rank spectrum, it is entertaining swapping stories and viewpoints. Scary sometimes though, especially at the differences in perception between the two ends.

 

[Stampede]

Just a question re the new Australian Multicam Camouflage Uniform (AMCU).

As it is now increasingly seen across the Army from it's introduction in 2016, I'm just wondering what the feed back is from those who work with it.
Is it living up to expectation as a superior Camouflage pattern compared to it's successors and is it's fit and cut as good as had been hoped for.

I have no experience of seeing it in the scrub so would be interested in others feed back.
From imagery, it appears very good at a close distance as the play of colour and pattern does seem to confuse. However at even a medium distance in pictures it appears to form a block colour similar to WW2 battledress, which is great, if the background is the same as WW2 battledress!!!!
Just wondering if the colour / pattern contrasts are too small to have a disruptive effect at distance?

Interested in any feedback.

Thanks and Regards S

PS - it must be better than the old issue of Greens.

 

[Raven22]

The AMCU pattern is basically indistinguishable from DPCU after about 10m. Which is to be expected considering they use the exact same colours. All the testing pointed to them being about as effective as each other, with AMCU only being adopted to see some return on investment for the money given to Crye to license the pattern. Why we didn’t just stick to the original Australianised multicam I will never know.

The uniforms themselves are good. The ‘field’ cams are more less just the old cams in the new pattern, although the pants have been updated a bit with stretchy material. My only complaint is that the arm pockets are still closed with buttons, which is almost impossible to do with one hand. I have heard they are being updated with zips, which is what they should have done in 2006 when the arm pockets first became a thing. The new ‘combat’ cams are a completely new pattern based on the cut we licensed from Crye. The shirt is really good, although I don’t know why the base material can’t be AMCU instead of flat khaki (cost aparantly) and while the jersey material is very comfortable, it gets holes in it easily. The pants are absurdly over-engineered in the typical American way. The grunts love them, as do other people that actually crawl around and use the knee pads, but I just use the ‘field’ pants with the ‘combat’ shirt.

Individual kit has come a long way in the last 8 years or so (since diggerworks was created), and it is no exaggeration to say that the individual kit of Australian soldiers is as good as any in the world. Any random conventional digger from a brigade now has better kit than the best given to special forces only a few years ago. I recently returned from an operation in the Middle East, and there was no other nation there that had better kit. Even better, the kit I used on ops was exactly the same as that as I had worn on Talisman Sabre a few months previously, because it is all general issue kit rather than only issued for operations. Once the new NFE and a replacement pistol comes in, pretty much everything will be as good as sensible money can buy.

 

[Milne Bay]

Once the new NFE and a replacement pistol comes in, pretty much everything will be as good as sensible money can buy.

Is there a short list for the replacement pistol yet?
MB

 

[Raven22]

I don’t think so. The replacement isn’t scheduled until the early 2020s as part of Land 159. Interestingly, there is a requirement for a personal defence weapon, with a range of about 200m, for personnel who don’t really need a rifle but for whom a pistol is a poor substitute. It will be interesting to see if that requirement survives and what gets chosen for it.

If you google Land 159 you can find some CASG presentations with more info.

 

[Milne Bay]

I don’t think so. The replacement isn’t scheduled until the early 2020s as part of Land 159. Interestingly, there is a requirement for a personal defence weapon, with a range of about 200m, for personnel who don’t really need a rifle but for whom a pistol is a poor substitute. It will be interesting to see if that requirement survives and what gets chosen for it.

If you google Land 159 you can find some CASG presentations with more info.

Thanks Raven.
Wasn't aware of the PDW requirement.
This could be a can of worms and will have everyone salivating over gucci kit - P90's and MP7's etc
Invariably these lead to possible new calibre types and the headaches that follow.
Should be interesting to follow, but my gut feeling is that it won't survive as a requirement and that the F90CQB will be the obvious pick
MB

 

[Raven22]

I think the requirement will survive. There are so many roles in which a rifle just isn’t needed, but a pistol is of such marginal use that something else is needed. Of all the different small arms options, the pistol is the one that needs the highest level of training to be effective. The vast majority of people that are given a pistol because they don’t need a rifle are more of a threat to themselves than any enemy. The only people that actually get enough rounds down range to be effective are also those that need a rifle (and the pistol remains a secondary weapon). A PDW, being a weapon that fires from the shoulder, is so much easier to learn and be effective with, but has a small form factor such that it can be strapped to a thigh or slung without great hassle.

 

[Stampede]

The AMCU pattern is basically indistinguishable from DPCU after about 10m. Which is to be expected considering they use the exact same colours. All the testing pointed to them being about as effective as each other, with AMCU only being adopted to see some return on investment for the money given to Crye to license the pattern. Why we didn’t just stick to the original Australianised multicam I will never know.

The uniforms themselves are good. The ‘field’ cams are more less just the old cams in the new pattern, although the pants have been updated a bit with stretchy material. My only complaint is that the arm pockets are still closed with buttons, which is almost impossible to do with one hand. I have heard they are being updated with zips, which is what they should have done in 2006 when the arm pockets first became a thing. The new ‘combat’ cams are a completely new pattern based on the cut we licensed from Crye. The shirt is really good, although I don’t know why the base material can’t be AMCU instead of flat khaki (cost aparantly) and while the jersey material is very comfortable, it gets holes in it easily. The pants are absurdly over-engineered in the typical American way. The grunts love them, as do other people that actually crawl around and use the knee pads, but I just use the ‘field’ pants with the ‘combat’ shirt.

Individual kit has come a long way in the last 8 years or so (since diggerworks was created), and it is no exaggeration to say that the individual kit of Australian soldiers is as good as any in the world. Any random conventional digger from a brigade now has better kit than the best given to special forces only a few years ago. I recently returned from an operation in the Middle East, and there was no other nation there that had better kit. Even better, the kit I used on ops was exactly the same as that as I had worn on Talisman Sabre a few months previously, because it is all general issue kit rather than only issued for operations. Once the new NFE and a replacement pistol comes in, pretty much everything will be as good as sensible money can buy.

Thanks for the detailed response.
Very informative and appreciated.

regards S

 

[toryu]

I think the requirement will survive. There are so many roles in which a rifle just isn’t needed, but a pistol is of such marginal use that something else is needed. Of all the different small arms options, the pistol is the one that needs the highest level of training to be effective. The vast majority of people that are given a pistol because they don’t need a rifle are more of a threat to themselves than any enemy. The only people that actually get enough rounds down range to be effective are also those that need a rifle (and the pistol remains a secondary weapon). A PDW, being a weapon that fires from the shoulder, is so much easier to learn and be effective with, but has a small form factor such that it can be strapped to a thigh or slung without great hassle.

Hi Raven,

Would it be a safe assumption that this requirement has come about with vehicle crews particularly in mind? If so, it would seem sensible enough if they could stick with the same cartridge calibre as whatever the follow on service pistol uses.

I recently read an article about a very compact 9mm (also in .40) carbine made by an American company that simply folded in half, with the barrel going back over the top of the receiver and stock. It was extremely compact but what really caught my eye is that, depending on the model you buy, the receiver feeds from a wide variety of really common (and cheap) pistol magazines from the most common service pistols around today, including ones from Glock, Sig Sauer, Beretta and S&W M&P. I would imagine using the same ammunition and mags as the replacement pistol would be hugely appealing. It's called the 'Sub 2000', made by Kel-Tec. There are some videos and articles online. The concept seems nearly perfect for a PDW requirement.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi Raven,

Would it be a safe assumption that this requirement has come about with vehicle crews particularly in mind? If so, it would seem sensible enough if they could stick with the same cartridge calibre as whatever the follow on service pistol uses.

I recently read an article about a very compact 9mm (also in .40) carbine made by an American company that simply folded in half, with the barrel going back over the top of the receiver and stock. It was extremely compact but what really caught my eye is that, depending on the model you buy, the receiver feeds from a wide variety of really common (and cheap) pistol magazines from the most common service pistols around today, including ones from Glock, Sig Sauer, Beretta and S&W M&P. I would imagine using the same ammunition and mags as the replacement pistol would be hugely appealing. It's called the 'Sub 2000', made by Kel-Tec. There are some videos and articles online. The concept seems nearly perfect for a PDW requirement.

Some of the designs from Kel-Tec I find quite interesting, and if they had come from another company might consider purchasing. Unfortunately I know of too many people who have purchased Kel-Tec products which proved to have limited service lives. An example of this was a model of a Kel-Tec sub-compact pistol chambered in .380 ACP which a number of people had wear out and require replacement after firing 200 rounds...

 

[MickB]

I think the requirement will survive. There are so many roles in which a rifle just isn’t needed, but a pistol is of such marginal use that something else is needed. Of all the different small arms options, the pistol is the one that needs the highest level of training to be effective. The vast majority of people that are given a pistol because they don’t need a rifle are more of a threat to themselves than any enemy. The only people that actually get enough rounds down range to be effective are also those that need a rifle (and the pistol remains a secondary weapon). A PDW, being a weapon that fires from the shoulder, is so much easier to learn and be effective with, but has a small form factor such that it can be strapped to a thigh or slung without great hassle.

I have often felt that the sand alone version of the Metal Storm MAUL would make a great PDW for those whos duties gave them limited time for marksmanship training.

MAUL is a 5 round 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun designed to be underslung on other weapons eg: M16.
The folding stock stand alone version would make a light, compact PDW without introducing exotic ammunition.

There is a vast difference in the volume of defensive fire a bailed out tank crew could put out with 4 of these up against 4 pistols.


To give way to a fantasy moment, I also wondered about the viability of the Colt SCAMP chambered in FN 5.7.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I recently read an article about a very compact 9mm (also in .40) carbine made by an American company that simply folded in half, with the barrel going back over the top of the receiver and stock. It was extremely compact but what really caught my eye is that, depending on the model you buy, the receiver feeds from a wide variety of really common (and cheap) pistol magazines from the most common service pistols around today, including ones from Glock, Sig Sauer, Beretta and S&W M&P. I would imagine using the same ammunition and mags as the replacement pistol would be hugely appealing. It's called the 'Sub 2000', made by Kel-Tec. There are some videos and articles online. The concept seems nearly perfect for a PDW requirement.

Some of the designs from Kel-Tec I find quite interesting, and if they had come from another company might consider purchasing. Unfortunately I know of too many people who have purchased Kel-Tec products which proved to have limited service lives. An example of this was a model of a Kel-Tec sub-compact pistol chambered in .380 ACP which a number of people had wear out and require replacement after firing 200 rounds...

Just to reinforce Todjaeger's point.
If you go to Kel-Tec's web site home page, a recall notice for the SUB-2000 pops up