Interview in the Australian with PM does note bode well for land armour projects. Behind a Paywall Strategic ambitions of a foreign policy PM — The Australian
A small extract……
“In general we need more weaponry that can actually make a difference,” he says. “What are the assets we need so that every dollar improves our national security? Are we going to be involved in a land war, in central Queensland? If so, you need some assets for that. But is that likely? Well, no. A lot of the expenditure was based on where Australia’s recent military experience had been, in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you’re engaged in a ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan you need some assets there.
“But now the question is: how does Australia defend ourselves? Where are our missile capabilities? It means drones. It means different assets. In today’s world cyber security is very important. What are the right assets for this now? You need to be prepared to make these decisions.”
A small extract……
“In general we need more weaponry that can actually make a difference,” he says. “What are the assets we need so that every dollar improves our national security? Are we going to be involved in a land war, in central Queensland? If so, you need some assets for that. But is that likely? Well, no. A lot of the expenditure was based on where Australia’s recent military experience had been, in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you’re engaged in a ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan you need some assets there.
“But now the question is: how does Australia defend ourselves? Where are our missile capabilities? It means drones. It means different assets. In today’s world cyber security is very important. What are the right assets for this now? You need to be prepared to make these decisions.”
Interesting
Is this code for less armour?
If so, then our force structure will need yet another re think.
Can't wait for some answers next year.
Cheers S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The M-113s have got to go, you cannot expect soldiers to go to war in the same APCs their grandfathers used at Long Tan. Even if we got extra Boxers to be used in the IFV role, it would be better than M-113s.
I agree. I don’t read this as necessarily about cuts (maybe some trimming at the edges) as this is a long overdue and needed replacement. I think this is more about where the promised spending increases will go, with the chances of additional armour seeming pretty slim.
HIMARS / NASAMS though? I’d expect a very big additional buy being announced. We’ll just have to wait and see.
What is the exact timing of the publication of the FSR? Will the interim or final reports to Government be released (this week and February), or will it all have to wait until March?
A lot of questions.
All for HIMARS and NASAMS, but do I find it difficult to envisage a scenario that requires such systems and not heavy armoured vehicles.
These systems are all at the high-end of war fighting.
Anyway not against change and looking at fresh ideas so long as we don't forget the lessons of the past that are still applicable today.
The reality is limited funds will require hard choices.
We wait to see what transpires.
Cheers S
Would this save that much money? Bushmasters sure, but Rheinmetall has recently struck a deal with the UK with a unit cost of US10.4m per Boxer, and a separate deal with Hungary for US12.0m per Lynx.
Obviously these aren’t what Australia would pay once you factor in local production etc, but the relative platform costs are not miles apart.
Maybe just fewer IFVs?
Separately, I imagine the screws are being turned hard on both Hanwha and Rheinmetall to get the very best deal possible. It wouldn’t surprise me if part of these statements are a charade by the Commonwealth to make the “no selection, project abandoned” option seem like a viable one, but I don’t know how sophisticated CASG / Government are with these sorts of shenanigans. Hopefully very.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We already have a production line up and running on Boxers, currently building ARVs at the same facility as the Lynx would be built
Would that mean that the Lynx would likely have a significant cost advantage over the Redback?
Mark_Evans
Member
Has a decent comparison been done on capability of the two vehicles or are we waiting for the official outcome with associated politics??
Well I would guess that the Redback will be built at the Hanwha Defense facility in Geelong which is already building the AS9, so about even in that respect
MB
Cut back in LAND 400 P3 vehicles most likely.
Scrapped all together....................... not out of the realm of possibility!
I read The Australian article and it was very general in nature; but change was suggested and increased capability in as short as time as possible was the theme. Some hints as to direction with heavy armour not one of them.
Labor say they will spend the money on defence, but realistically the funds have to come from somewhere.
Cancelling LAND 400 P3, IFV's may well prove to be the outcome. "Its a very big bag of coin".
So maybe a modest increase in Boxer numbers, plus Bushmaster's and Hawkei could be the future.
As an observation the French do not have a tracked IFV ,but rather operate their wheeled VBCI with their MBT's.
Britain is also to go down this path with their tracked Warrior IFV's to be retired this decade and replaced with the wheeled Boxer IFV.
Conjecture as to which way we go, but I feel all cards are on the table re Army's vehicle inventory.
Cheers S
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Evening all,
Just as a side question pure hypothetically with no information to suggest as such... If the upcoming defence review called for the raising of an additional infantry battalion is it likely to be 4th RAR or see a delinking of 8/9?
How much does politics & history come into play?
Just as a side question pure hypothetically with no information to suggest as such... If the upcoming defence review called for the raising of an additional infantry battalion is it likely to be 4th RAR or see a delinking of 8/9?
How much does politics & history come into play?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
My biggest concern with cancelling land 400-3 is what it would do to the Army, suspect moral would plummet
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
That would be my guess, and I think it makes sense. A cut of a third could be said to save $9 billion. Meanwhile, you're still manufacturing 300, which will deliver a lot of jobs somewhere. It's entirely politically palatable.
This comment you (I think it was you) posted above from the PM is pertinent here: "Well, no. A lot of the expenditure was based on where Australia’s recent military experience had been, in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you’re engaged in a ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan you need some assets there." It reflects an old truism that militaries are always planning to fight the last war.
To be fair, that's not exactly true of the Army, which is moving on from Plan Beersheba.
Quite some time ago Raven posted an update that was interesting. In short, the "new" plan is for 5RAR in Darwin to become an amphibious battalion - a Pre Landing Force, a la 2RAR. Meanwhile, 9 Brigade in SA becomes more regular than reserve with the addition of 1 Armoured and 7RAR (mech). This is happening. It would seem the RAR will have two motorised infantry battalions, three mechanised infantry battalions, and two amphibious battalions (which operate at about half-strength).
It makes sense given our reorientation to our region, and considering the logistics of deploying armour, for that balance to be shifted slightly with one of the mechanised battalions becoming motorised. It could be a simple case of having 3 Brigade adopt a somewhat lighter footprint. That would give you three motorised battalions (remembering these can deploy without their vehicles, by air, by sea, and fight on foot) that can rotate the operational deployment force responsibility.
With two mechanised battalions, and the three tank squadrons, you could still form three armoured battle groups. In our region, it's more likely that such forces would be deployed in combat teams. A troop of tanks and two platoons of infantry in IFVs would give added weight to any force we could land ashore.
May well be correct,t but to be honest I'm a bit confused as to what the future army structure will look like.
Given the small size of our Army, I think more terms of Company's / Squadrons rather than Battalions and Regiments.
To my knowledge of Plan Beersheba / Keogh.
3 x Tank
9 x Mechanised Infantry
9 x Motorised Infantry
6 x Cavalry
2 x Amphibious ( Unique Company / Platoon Composition )
Total - 29 x Company's / Squadrons.
In reference to the above, I'm not sure what the composition will look like.
This will be compounded if there are dramatic changes to LAND 400 P3.
Any clarity for intended composition would be appreciated.
Cheers S
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
Despite the best attempts of some to ignore the Army Reserve, there are also four Brigades of light/motorised Infantry including Signals, Recce, Supply, and artillery (assuming one is retasked in the fourth combat brigade). Not sure of current manning levels but the Reserve is meant to defend 'Central Queensland's not pad out our undermanned regulars (though many do volunteer to do this).
Interesting re Reserves.
To my understanding the bulk of current Ukrainian army is essentially a mobilised reserve.
Whilst I appreciate the arguable apples v oranges comparisons in current circumstances, they are a practical demonstration of Army Reserve potential capability.
Fixation on solely Regular Army at the expense of exploring reserves and their Cadre would be remiss.
The upcoming review would hopefully identify this.
To my understanding the bulk of current Ukrainian army is essentially a mobilised reserve.
Whilst I appreciate the arguable apples v oranges comparisons in current circumstances, they are a practical demonstration of Army Reserve potential capability.
Fixation on solely Regular Army at the expense of exploring reserves and their Cadre would be remiss.
The upcoming review would hopefully identify this.
Yep guilty
Not really trying to ignore the reserve.
Just acknowledging that most of our heavy vehicles are with the Regs.
The recent conversation has been centred around future vehicles and force composition.
True , adjustments for both full and part soldiers
The reserves certainly have a place in the big picture of force structure.
Cheers S