Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

When you start to include armoured vehicle turrents into the equation you quickly run into proprietary technology issues. If the ASLAV is anything like the NZLAV you couldn’t just give that away, the M113 turrents are relatively new also.

In this case I think many would simply ask for a pen to sign the authority to do so. For what ever nations we have gear from (ie: USA and arms control restrictions) or even corporations they are either A. already actively aiding Ukraine and if seen blocking anything will be egg on their face while for corporations many of who are making a killing at the moment it could hurt business long term for them if they try and siphon money for military aid being given to Ukraine.

 

[MickB]

Silly Question. Why not offload the aslav's and m113s that were upgraded to ukraine since they are probably going to be scrap metal soon enough. Not talking huge numbers, but perhaps 50 odd of each of those that have run the most.

My understanding is that the M113s are no longer considered a viable front line vehicle.
Mine protection is considered lacking.
If the idea is to use them as a PMV then just send PMVs such as the Bushmasters already sent.

 

[ADMk2]

Appreciate you filling in the gaps. I was sceptical when I read it on the ABC but took it as confirmed from the APDR report. Makes sense. Now.

I know the spike isn’t in Australia yet but was of the view that a test had taken place. I thought the missiles and turrent had been delivered on the test vehicles for testing … how else would they arrive at the decision?

The turret was tested and the missile was assessed. But the missile hadn’t (and still hasn’t) been integrated on the Lance turret so it clearly couldn’t be fired from it.

On top of which the launcher for said missile hadn’t even been selected. We now know Defence has selected the Supashock anti-tank retractable launcher for this missile and the process of integrating that and the missile into the Lance turret is underway. I imagine at some point we will hear about qualification and test firings.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not aimed at anyone in particular.

Due to the upcoming Australian Federal election on 21 May 2022, keep Australian partisan politics out of any discussions. The Moderators will have little tolerance for it.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

My understanding is that the M113s are no longer considered a viable front line vehicle.
Mine protection is considered lacking.
If the idea is to use them as a PMV then just send PMVs such as the Bushmasters already sent.

Sorry Mick
Last I heard we were well on our way to loyal wingman version M113
I don't think we will part with any of those supposed tin cans for a little while yet.
Apparently we own quite a few of them as well.

 

[Redlands18]

Sorry Mick
Last I heard we were well on our way to loyal wingman version M113
I don't think we will part with any of those supposed tin cans for a little while yet.
Apparently we own quite a few of them as well.

We upgraded 380 to AS4 Standard. I don't know if there is actually a plan to convert M-113s to unmanned Vehicles for frontline use or its just a proof of concept project at this stage

 

[Rock the kasbah]

I watched today a you tube show
Hypohistericalhistory about the Australian Army
It was good, the bloke is a good teacher . Probably need Takao to verify it.
My question is
Why did we get rid of the 105 mm gun
Surely that's the a go to for the reserves

 

[MickB]

Sorry Mick
Last I heard we were well on our way to loyal wingman version M113
I don't think we will part with any of those supposed tin cans for a little while yet.
Apparently we own quite a few of them as well.

I wasn't suggesting we part with them. I quite like the idea of using them as unmanned supply vehicles or unmanned rocket battery/missile carriers even if we have to put the the remote controllers in a better blast protected vehicile.

My comment was directed at Lolcake who suggested we dump them on Ukraine.

 

[Redlands18]

I watched today a you tube show
Hypohistericalhistory about the Australian Army
It was good, the bloke is a good teacher . Probably need Takao to verify it.
My question is
Why did we get rid of the 105 mm gun
Surely that's the a go to for the reserves

There has been comments through the Australian Threads about his Videos, not overly flattering.
Watching it now and one of the first things he said was "the Army is not a critical element of Australia's defence" I'm sorry but that shows a real lack of real understanding of Defence in general. He lost me at that point.

 

[ddxx]

There has been comments through the Australian Threads about his Videos, not overly flattering.
Watching it now and one of the first things he said was "the Army is not a critical element of Australia's defence" I'm sorry but that shows a real lack of real understanding of Defence in general. He lost me at that point.

I think your quote is taken out of context.

He’s very passionate about the utility of land warfare and holds a Doctorate in military strategy through linking historical events to the modern environment.

I don’t agree with all of his suggestions either - but the majority of his analysis aren’t about suggestions, but overall strategy not confined to a single service.

 

[Redlands18]

I think your quote is taken out of context.

He’s very passionate about the utility of land warfare and holds a Doctorate in military strategy through linking historical events to the modern environment.

I don’t agree with all of his suggestions either - but the majority of his analysis aren’t about suggestions, but overall strategy not confined to a single service.

Not my quote its his, basically word for word. He then goes on to talk about the Sea-Air Gap to Australia's North, that battle would be heavily reliant on Northern air and Naval bases and IMHO he is completely underestimating the importance the Army would play in the Defence of those bases and hunting down those raiding parties, also the Army is the only one with GBAD. The Armies role may not be as critical but to write the Army off in such a blase manner is poor analysis and a lot of people would stop watching his video straight away.

 

[ddxx]

Not my quote its his, basically word for word. He then goes on to talk about the Sea-Air Gap to Australia's North, that battle would be heavily reliant on Northern air and Naval bases and IMHO he is completely underestimating the importance the Army would play in the Defence of those bases and hunting down those raiding parties, also the Army is the only one with GBAD. The Armies role may not be as critical but to write the Army off in such a blase manner is poor analysis and a lot of people would stop watching his video straight away.

I really depends on the scenario we’re playing out. The moment we’re putting soldiers ashore in a peer to peer combat setting is a massive step, which skips both “shape” and “deter” jumping right to “respond”.

IMO in our part of the world, the army would be most effective with a greater marine-like bent.

 

[aussienscale]

and holds a Doctorate in military strategy through linking historical events to the modern environment

Does he ? who is he ? Can you supply any reference for that claim and his academic credentials please ?

He is also on this site, but for someone who has the supposed qualifications and credentials he remains silent other than his YouTube channel !

He is decidedly very coy for an expert with qualifications to be open to debate !

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

I watched today a you tube show
Hypohistericalhistory about the Australian Army
It was good, the bloke is a good teacher . Probably need Takao to verify it.
My question is
Why did we get rid of the 105 mm gun
Surely that's the a go to for the reserves

Army didn’t want to support 2 different artillery calibres and the L118 guns were shagged after long years of service.

The idea that things can just be ‘cascaded’ to the reserves, ignores the very hard service ADF platforms endure.

 

[OldTex]

Army didn’t want to support 2 different artillery calibres and the L118 guns were shagged after long years of service.

The idea that things can just be ‘cascaded’ to the reserves, ignores the very hard service ADF platforms endure.

The idea of cascading replaced equipment to the Reserves also ignores the fact that doing that means the training has to be maintained by the appropriate School as does the all of the technical maintenance and logistic support. It would also mean that the Reserves cannot simply feed into ARA units as augmentations.

 

[ADMk2]

The idea of cascading replaced equipment to the Reserves also ignores the fact that doing that means the training has to be maintained by the appropriate School as does the all of the technical maintenance and logistic support. It would also mean that the Reserves cannot simply feed into ARA units as augmentations.

Yep, I’m all for the idea of better equipping the reserve units along ARA lines, but it would take money and commitment to do so, money and commitment we rarely get from our political masters.

The idea that we can just pass on old, worn-out ex-ARA equipment to Reserve units and somehow develop a credible capability is a fantasy.

The concept of the current ”trial” of light Cavalry capability at 10 LHR to me demonstrates a possibly excellent way forward. Reinforcement of ARA units with soldier and perhaps up to sub-unit level capability remains, but development of supportable “different” capabilities, that can be maintained within the allocated budgets (both cost - acquisition and sustainment as well as training-wise, organisationally speaking) could provide a genuinely needed role for reserve units, that contribute much needed capability to Army (and perhaps ADF as a whole) rather than just providing less well equipped, less well trained ’more of the same” (but always of course much lower SERCAT) type units.

Perhaps much of the current enthusiasm for “light” capabilities and their accordingly lower training and support requirements might well be better vested in reserve units, while the ARA focusses primarily on the high end stuff?

Small unit “strike” (for lack of a better term) capabilities for anti-armour, anti-air and perhaps loitering munition type operations that we are seeing in the real world today, might well be within the training capabilities of our reserve units, along with capabilities such as light cavalry, that could provide a seemingly very useful adjunct to our future “heavy” ARA units?

 

[alexsa]

I think your quote is taken out of context.

He’s very passionate about the utility of land warfare and holds a Doctorate in military strategy through linking historical events to the modern environment.

I don’t agree with all of his suggestions either - but the majority of his analysis aren’t about suggestions, but overall strategy not confined to a single service.

And Hugh White is an Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies, School of International, Political & Strategic Studies at ANU. It does not mean that he is always right or that DoD, senior officers or others with and interest will always necessarily agree with him. Academics, like a number of uniformed senior officers, may have their particular view of the world and can often be dogmatic in their defence of that view. Hugh White has been pretty consistently applying his mantra.

Hugh White’s Defence of Australia doctrine sounds worryingly familiar - Defence Connect

The same goes for Hypohistericalhistory who has treated the responses from some parties with a degree of contempt. I agree with some of what he says but not all. On the subject at towed guns I would carefully consider the views of the operators, who have practical experience, and who are going in harms way with these things, when making such proposals.

 

[Volkodav]

Yep, I’m all for the idea of better equipping the reserve units along ARA lines, but it would take money and commitment to do so, money and commitment we rarely get from our political masters.

The idea that we can just pass on old, worn-out ex-ARA equipment to Reserve units and somehow develop a credible capability is a fantasy.

The concept of the current ”trial” of light Cavalry capability at 10 LHR to me demonstrates a possibly excellent way forward. Reinforcement of ARA units with soldier and perhaps up to sub-unit level capability remains, but development of supportable “different” capabilities, that can be maintained within the allocated budgets (both cost - acquisition and sustainment as well as training-wise, organisationally speaking) could provide a genuinely needed role for reserve units, that contribute much needed capability to Army (and perhaps ADF as a whole) rather than just providing less well equipped, less well trained ’more of the same” (but always of course much lower SERCAT) type units.

Perhaps much of the current enthusiasm for “light” capabilities and their accordingly lower training and support requirements might well be better vested in reserve units, while the ARA focusses primarily on the high end stuff?

Small unit “strike” (for lack of a better term) capabilities for anti-armour, anti-air and perhaps loitering munition type operations that we are seeing in the real world today, might well be within the training capabilities of our reserve units, along with capabilities such as light cavalry, that could provide a seemingly very useful adjunct to our future “heavy” ARA units?

That and capabilities that can be maintained predominantly through simulation with the equipment being of a type that requires minimal maintenance. Deployable rocket and missile capabilities could fit this type. Easy and cheap the develop and maintain the required skills, even though the equipment its self is high end and expensive, leave most on the gear in storage, use the minimum for training as required and do the rest of the training with simulators.

 

[ADMk2]

Project LAND 159 Phase 1 has been given the go-ahead reportedly at $527.2m…

Government invests $527.2m in new weapons under LAND 159 Tranche 1

NIOA has been formally selected by Defence to deliver the Lethality Systems Project (LAND 159) Tranche 1 following a period of consultation between Defence and the company. Minister for Defence Peter

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Will see Army and (I imagine) elements of RAAF and RAN equipped with new generation shotguns, breaching systems, pistols, personal defence weapons and sniper systems…

No details on breakdowns or types yet. More will undoubtedly follow…

Government invests $527.2m in new weapons under LAND 159 Tranche 1

NIOA has been formally selected by Defence to deliver the Lethality Systems Project (LAND 159) Tranche 1 following a period of consultation between Defence and the company. Minister for Defence Peter

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[Volkodav]

It will be interesting to see what equipment is actually selected. Hoping SIG, expecting Glock.