Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Gryphinator]

The agencies for dealing with emergencies are woefully underfunded. The resilience NSW fund has proven to be useless (I live in NNSW and and work for NSW Health now). The response has been sluggish to say the least. The efforts certainly uncoordinated (here, the local kayak hire guy was, by default the main POC for rescues, just to give some context)
Given the natural disasters we've had to deal with in the last 3 years, I'd advocate for a separate federal civil defence service that deals with fires/floods and whatever else the government deems they're suitable for (aged care a big no- just properly fund it!!!) What it looks like, you can go nuts with composition, but its clear defence shouldn't be the 000 for overwhelmed state services.
Could even have some low mileage Spartans and Taipans as Avn assets

 

[Takao]

Given the environmental future that many of us can see coming, I would have thought that “Defense of the realm” would logically extend to response to environmental events that impact upon the safety of Australian citizens. While fully excepting that this is a bit of a paradigms shift within historical defense planning, I do think that Blind Freddy can see that more events, of significantly greater magnitude, are going to be directly affecting The Commonwealth of Australia and its citizens.

The fact that a record low pressure system, flood, fire is not holding an AK-47 does not make it just as dangerous to Australian citizens, and given the last 15 years of Australian flood/fire history it is 1000% more likely to happen than an invasion. I would’ve thought that this would make a ideal justification for extending, up skilling, reinforcing Australian defense forces.

Just because it is what you’ve always done,
doesn't mean it’s what you'll always need to do

You are right.

But the core business of a HADR organisation is fundamentally opposed to a warfighting one.

Like so many have been calling for over the past five years especially, a national "SES", with a full time workforce, actual notice to move and readiness, similar benefits to the ADF, RW and engineering focused that can practise doing HADR and actually do a good job. Let the local SES and RFS blister on, have liaison officers in them already. Belong to the Ministry of Home Affairs or similar (not Defence).

ADF still can respond with unique capabilities, but the 'NES' is the lead uniformed response.

 

[Massive]

This one based on the Bushmaster with NSM.

Why Bushmaster?

2 missiles per firing unit, 4 firing units per battery, 2 batteries.

Bespoke penny packet capability.

Old habits die very hard.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

He ignores the initial purchase of Javelin ATGW and other top up purchases of missile inventory, he ignores the fact that the timeline of manufacturing Spike LR2 is in accordance with the timeline of introduction of BOXER Block 2 vehicles (Block 1's don't have SPIKE LR2 integrated) so I wonder why exactly we'd have live SPIKE rounds being manufactured with nothing to fire them from?

He completely ignores our other anti-armour weapons capabilities in terms of M72A6, Carl Gustav M3 / M4 and Hellfire missiles...

So um? Yeah...

I was always surprised that a ATGW was not introduced on to the upgraded M113AS4.
While it was never meant to be a IFV, in reality if was ever actually used, it was always going to have to be a" de facto IFV ".
Tanks or no tanks, a M113 with an ATGM opens up a lot more options than just a .50 cal.
Why is this important?
One - immediate increase in capability
Two - the M113 upgrade was always a stop gap to what we have always wanted and that's an IFV capability. It provides training and culture.

The events in Europe remind us that things move quickly and you go with what you have.

We do have 59 MBT's ,40 year ASLAVs and 50 year old APC's. Bushmasters and some yet to be accepted Hawkei's
Add 25 Boxers with a delayed roll out and a IFV that's yet to be selected.
We don't have the projected stuff in SPG's . MLRS, etc .............................it's all down the track yet we talk about it so much it's like we have it in inventory with a capability good to go.

So lets get as much capability on the stuff we actually have.
Spike should of been rolled out way before the introduction of the BOXER.
It doesn't just have to go on a Cav vehicle.

I remember reading an account of a troop of Australian APC's doing peace keeping work in Africa in the 1980's.
As they chased an enemy "Technical "they were quietly please to have lost it in the dusty scrub as that vehicle out gunned their .50 cal in its old manual turret....................Yep out gunned by a ute with a heavier weapon on the back
Did they need a ATGM?
Maybe / maybe not; but what was needed was over match and deterrent.

Javelin is a known and Spike should be fast tracked.
If we have something today that moves with wheels or tracks bolt it on.

Integration issues can be fixed with focus and urgency.
Its a ATGM ,it's surely not that complicated

Maybe "Technical's are still our operational limit.!

Regards S

 

[ADMk2]

Such would require multiple integration efforts and money spent simply to up-arm vehicles which are not deployable anyway. It would be good money after bad. Same for Phase 1 Boxer’s. They will undergo a significantly planned upgrade and refresh when the Phase 2 vehicles start arriving and replace them. Boxer 1 however has the full power 30x173mm cannon. There is no ‘technical‘ that is not going to out-match, particular with the sensors and fire control system it has.

As the phase 2 vehicles are supposed to be delivered between February 2022 to 2027, I imagine we’ll start seeing them soonish, so the extra money (assuming there is any) is probably better off arming more LAND 400 Ph.2 and Ph.3 vehicles with SPIKE LR2, than current plans allow for (around about 40 vehicles only I understand).

I can however see a decent argument to equip a percentage of Hawkei vehicles with a remote weapon station, ATGW and co-ax gun / AGL systems under Army’s emerging ‘light cavalry’ capability centred on appropriately equipped Hawkei vehicles (such as are already issued to 10 LHR). Whether that is existing Javelin or future SPIKE LR2 probably takes some study, as both will need to be integrated onto the RWS, with the system itself physically modified to accept an ATGW and then digitally upgraded to operate it. Then of course training individually and collectively needs to be conducted, doctrine developed and so forth…

As for SPIKE LR2, before we get too carried away with it, it doesn’t exist in production in Australia right now, so it will take time to ramp up anyway. Technical certification activities and vehicle integration kits are still underway, so it isn’t ready to go ‘yet’. There is also a strong chance it will be selected to replace Javelin in the units currently operating this weapon (and perhaps on other platforms) but those decisions haven’t been made yet and in any case will take time to roll out, train users of and integrate this weapon onto our planned RWS systems and vehicles.

I’m as keen for as much capability as possible in ADF as the next guy, but these decisions have to be studied and thought through…

 

[cdxbow]

You are right.

But the core business of a HADR organisation is fundamentally opposed to a warfighting one.

Like so many have been calling for over the past five years especially, a national "SES", with a full time workforce, actual notice to move and readiness, similar benefits to the ADF, RW and engineering focused that can practise doing HADR and actually do a good job. Let the local SES and RFS blister on, have liaison officers in them already. Belong to the Ministry of Home Affairs or similar (not Defence).

ADF still can respond with unique capabilities, but the 'NES' is the lead uniformed response.

Yes, some form of 'NES" would help. An article by the ABC talks about the issue Should natural disaster responses be part of the Australian Defence Force's job? - ABC News One of the suggestions was to have a unit within the ADF. I certainly think it needs to tightly wedded to the federal government and being an ADF unit would allow that.

There are some dangers when you let folks play at being sort of semi military rescue service. Older posters may remember the infamous John Friedreich and the National Safety Council of Victoria . He was a conman who 'borrowed' millions of dollars to make the NSCV into a premier SAR/HADR organisation, with plenty of gear and 300 staff. He was found out in about 1989, did a bunk then suicided. I once met the bloke through my boss and got the grifter vibe immediately. My boss never saw it and became an Honorary director of the NSCV. Turns out the directors were held personally liable for debts of the NSCV. Oversite of these types of organisations was tightened after that. THE LESSONS OF THE NSCA SCANDAL (afr.com)

 

[Zorborg]

Text deleted. Political post.

@Zorborg Text deleted because you have posted a political post. Such posts are against the rules especially in a thread where the topic country is in a runup to an election. You are awarded 3 demerit points for 3 months.

Do not repeat this offence again because this is something that the Moderators take very seriously.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Stampede]

Such would require multiple integration efforts and money spent simply to up-arm vehicles which are not deployable anyway. It would be good money after bad. Same for Phase 1 Boxer’s. They will undergo a significantly planned upgrade and refresh when the Phase 2 vehicles start arriving and replace them. Boxer 1 however has the full power 30x173mm cannon. There is no ‘technical‘ that is not going to out-match, particular with the sensors and fire control system it has.

As the phase 2 vehicles are supposed to be delivered between February 2022 to 2027, I imagine we’ll start seeing them soonish, so the extra money (assuming there is any) is probably better off arming more LAND 400 Ph.2 and Ph.3 vehicles with SPIKE LR2, than current plans allow for (around about 40 vehicles only I understand).

I can however see a decent argument to equip a percentage of Hawkei vehicles with a remote weapon station, ATGW and co-ax gun / AGL systems under Army’s emerging ‘light cavalry’ capability centred on appropriately equipped Hawkei vehicles (such as are already issued to 10 LHR). Whether that is existing Javelin or future SPIKE LR2 probably takes some study, as both will need to be integrated onto the RWS, with the system itself physically modified to accept an ATGW and then digitally upgraded to operate it. Then if course training individually and collectively needs to be conducted, doctrine developed and so forth…

As for SPIKE LR2, before we get too carried away with it, it doesn’t exist in production in Australia right now, so it will take time to ramp up anyway. Technical certification activities and vehicle integration kits are still underway, so it isn’t ready to go ‘yet’. There is also a strong chance it will be selected to replace Javelin in the units currently operating this weapon (and perhaps on other platforms) but those decisions haven’t been made yet and in any case will take time to roll out, train users of and integrate this weapon onto our planned RWS systems and vehicles.

I’m as keen for as much capability as possible in ADF as the next guy, but these decisions have to be studied and thought through…

Thanks for the reply

Looking forward, certainly agree ARMY will need to revamp the number of LAND 400 vehicles Ph2 and Ph3 vehicles with Spike.
I get budgets and trade offs. Unfortunately Europe's current conflict again highlights the demand of ATGM's and MPADS in modern conflict.
Yes they are expensive but the trade off in not having them are just not good.

Glad you mentioned 10 LHR. This is the sort of REG /RES unit that should hopefully work and be implemented across the 'realm"
ATGM should definitely be apart of that mix.

While 30 x 173mm will be a good move in the future I still have reservations as to when we get all this new kit and the expectations placed upon us with the kit in hand.

Need to do some magic with the timetables.
.
Regards S

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks for the reply

Looking forward, certainly agree ARMY will need to revamp the number of LAND 400 vehicles Ph2 and Ph3 vehicles with Spike.
I get budgets and trade offs. Unfortunately Europe's current conflict again highlights the demand of ATGM's and MPADS in modern conflict.
Yes they are expensive but the trade off in not having them are just not good.

Glad you mentioned 10 LHR. This is the sort of REG /RES unit that should hopefully work and be implemented across the 'realm"
ATGM should definitely be apart of that mix.

While 30 x 173mm will be a good move in the future I still have reservations as to when we get all this new kit and the expectations placed upon us with the kit in hand.

Need to do some magic with the timetables.
.
Regards S

Well the whole point of the Phase 1 Boxer’s was to get a quick ‘deployable’ squadron level capability, as well as a training and tactics development capability as soon as possible. With all 25x Phase 1 vehicles delivered, Army has got that ‘quick’ capability enhancement already. Boxer Phase 2 will start rolling out this year or the next and we will then start getting SPIKE capability inherent in the ACR’s as well, which will be a further boost. LAND 400 Ph.3 is due to be announced any time now, so that will be an eagerly anticipated boost as well…

If we have donated to the Ukraine what has been speculated has, I imagine we might see some more FMS ‘top ups’ shortly of in-service systems, bearing in mind of course you can only introduce so much, so quickly.

We are currently rolling out Carl Gustav M4 for example across infantry battalions, Cavalry units and other units, as just one example of how our anti-armour capabilities are not remaining stagnant…

 

[Zorborg]

ARA and ARes have been in demand recently, mostly to assist with Federal Government 'shortcomings'. Calling on the ADF to resolve problems as frequently as those that have occurred over the past few years is not sustainable. As others have said, it is primarily a war-fighting organisation, and we don't want to lose that.

I don't believe there is room for an additional emergency services organisation, considering the cost of the organisation, but mostly the manpower is already volunteering in the 'emergency' by being part of the ARes, SES, CFA etc. However, there is always a need for manpower and logistics that the ADF can provide. Mundane tasks like delivering supplies, cleaning out mud, or filling sandbags takes time and manpower. There is often too much for SES, emergency services and other volunteers to do, so I support the idea that the ADF can help, but caution needs to be realised if drawing on the ADF for every 'emergency'.

(text edited to not be political)

 

[SMC]

The problem is that the State and territory governments are responsible for responding to and recovering from natural disasters. The Federal Government’s role is one of support (such as DACC, Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payments to individuals and Disaster Recovery Allowance).

In a nutshell the feds aid states and territories, to complement the state and territory responses.

Calls to set up a “National Emergency Service” would only detract from the current State arrangements and indeed muddy the waters around current (State) agency legislative responsibilities as well as command and control during the event.

Much better to bolster funding to those state agencies that are already in place.

As a side note in my current role in a state-based emergency service organisation, I have witnessed and even tasked ADF assets in past emergency events. One of the key advantages is that ADF units come completely self-sufficient, you don’t have to worry about feeding, housing, or fuelling them.

 

[Stampede]

Well the whole point of the Phase 1 Boxer’s was to get a quick ‘deployable’ squadron level capability, as well as a training and tactics development capability as soon as possible. With all 25x Phase 1 vehicles delivered, Army has got that ‘quick’ capability enhancement already. Boxer Phase 2 will start rolling out this year or the next and we will then start getting SPIKE capability inherent in the ACR’s as well, which will be a further boost. LAND 400 Ph.3 is due to be announced any time now, so that will be an eagerly anticipated boost as well…

If we have donated to the Ukraine what has been speculated has, I imagine we might see some more FMS ‘top ups’ shortly of in-service systems, bearing in mind of course you can only introduce so much, so quickly.

We are currently rolling out Carl Gustav M4 for example across infantry battalions, Cavalry units and other units, as just one example of how our anti-armour capabilities are not remaining stagnant…

Thanks again.

What's the latest expectation of the roll out for Land 400 Phase 3.

Land Combat Vehicle System (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) | Business & Industry | Defence

LAND 400 Phase 3 will be replacing the M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier fleet.

www.defence.gov.au

Force structure Plan takes the project out to 2035 plus, but I'm sure we'll have a capability long before that time.
Just interested as to when.

Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

Thanks again.

What's the latest expectation of the roll out for Land 400 Phase 3.

Land Combat Vehicle System (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) | Business & Industry | Defence

LAND 400 Phase 3 will be replacing the M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier fleet.

www.defence.gov.au

Force structure Plan takes the project out to 2035 plus, but I'm sure we'll have a capability long before that time.
Just interested as to when.

Regards S

My money would be on an announcement before the end of May,

 

[ADMk2]

My money would be on an announcement before the end of May,

Well before for me…

Next couple of weeks at the outside I am guessing…

 

[ADMk2]

I was always surprised that a ATGW was not introduced on to the upgraded M113AS4.
While it was never meant to be a IFV, in reality if was ever actually used, it was always going to have to be a" de facto IFV ".
Tanks or no tanks, a M113 with an ATGM opens up a lot more options than just a .50 cal.
Why is this important?
One - immediate increase in capability
Two - the M113 upgrade was always a stop gap to what we have always wanted and that's an IFV capability. It provides training and culture.

The events in Europe remind us that things move quickly and you go with what you have.

We do have 59 MBT's ,40 year ASLAVs and 50 year old APC's. Bushmasters and some yet to be accepted Hawkei's
Add 25 Boxers with a delayed roll out and a IFV that's yet to be selected.
We don't have the projected stuff in SPG's . MLRS, etc .............................it's all down the track yet we talk about it so much it's like we have it in inventory with a capability good to go.

So lets get as much capability on the stuff we actually have.
Spike should of been rolled out way before the introduction of the BOXER.
It doesn't just have to go on a Cav vehicle.

I remember reading an account of a troop of Australian APC's doing peace keeping work in Africa in the 1980's.
As they chased an enemy "Technical "they were quietly please to have lost it in the dusty scrub as that vehicle out gunned their .50 cal in its old manual turret....................Yep out gunned by a ute with a heavier weapon on the back
Did they need a ATGM?
Maybe / maybe not; but what was needed was over match and deterrent.

Javelin is a known and Spike should be fast tracked.
If we have something today that moves with wheels or tracks bolt it on.

Integration issues can be fixed with focus and urgency.
Its a ATGM ,it's surely not that complicated

Maybe "Technical's are still our operational limit.!

Regards S

Further to this, there might be some second thoughts on retiring Javelin going on. Lightweight CLU (replacing existing CLU) is on it’s way, adding far target location capabilities and compatibility with Stinger MANPADS (meaning you just need missile stocks to use either anti-armour or anti-air missiles from the same launch unit) and missile upgrades adding range, and APS defeat capabilities.

Javelin is also already integrated on EOS 400 RWS, which we have specified for Boxer and (I believe) Hawkei…

Plenty of missile stock in-service too, so there is a pretty damn good case for retaining it for some time yet, not to mention how capable it is proving on a daily basis in the Ukraine…

 

[Redlands18]

Well before for me…

Next couple of weeks at the outside I am guessing…

I can't say how I think it may play out without entering the Politics no-go zone.

 

[Massive]

.............................it's all down the track yet we talk about it so much it's like we have it in inventory with a capability good to go.

Yes - I have been reflecting on this recently as well.

Announced programs can definitely lead to complacency despite the capability being a fair way off.

And the capacity to absorb new capabilities is of course limited.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

We are currently rolling out Carl Gustav M4 for example across infantry battalions, Cavalry units and other units, as just one example of how our anti-armour capabilities are not remaining stagnant…

I feel that there is a gap both in ATGW type and in ATGW density.

There is a clear need for MBT LAW in addition to Spike/Javelin and CG M4.

At the same time there needs to be an increase in the density of ATGW in units, given armoured & protected vehicles are rapidly increasing in numbers.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

Unfortunately Europe's current conflict again highlights the demand of ATGM's and MPADS in modern conflict.
Yes they are expensive but the trade off in not having them are just not good.

The point on MPADS is well made.

It is clear now that the ADF is going to need to acquire a Stinger equivalent to complement NASAMS, and it is hard to imagine that a Patriot equivalent will not also be acquired.

The other thing that needs to be thought through is what is the role of the reserves - if they are intended to be a warfighting organisation then I feel there needs to be more consideration given to forming them into BCTs, and providing them with appropriate protected vehicles, as well as ATGMs and at least a basic air defence capability in the form of MPADS.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Gryphinator]

I don't know if any of you have already seen and dismissed this, but according to AFR the Lynx has won the Land400 ph3 competition. Wouldn't surprise me if they did. Appeasing Europe post submarine cancellation?

Decision on $27b armoured vehicle contract in government’s sights

A German company is in the box seat to win a lucrative contract as Australia seeks a new European conduit after killing off the French submarine contract.

www.afr.com