Australian Army Discussions and Updates

RubiconNZ

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
This discussion pops its head up every few years but I do wonder if Australia is closer to accepting something like Abbots proposal.
National Service with a twist...

There is a lot to be said into increasing the capacity of ADF trade schools especially with defence industry pathways afterwards.... As I understand the difficulty with National Service is often when you get them to a near appropriate level of capability their term of service is up. Non defence options aside however, would an influx of say 10000 conscripts to the defence forces help or hinder? How many stayed on after the Gap year program? I'm guessing not a lot as they scrapped it...

Less seriously though some of the article instantly had me thinking of this...

 
Last edited:
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There's a lot of speculation going on and until the govt release the details of their review, we really know nothing. Hell they could be forming a division of drop bears for all we know :cool: and with pollies you can never take anything for granted.

A lot of things have changed since 24/2/22 and what we knew before then and what we know are two completely different stories. There's a state on state conflict in Eastern Europe and the geopolitical situation in Indo-Pacific has changed for the worse since 20/10/22 with confirmation of Xi Jinping's 3rd term as Sec Gen of CCP, Chair CMC, and President of PRC. It means a refocussing of Foreign Affairs, Defence & Security policies, strategies, and priorities. Something like that takes time. We all know what we would like, but let's just wait and see what the review says.
 
A

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
Stampede said:
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
Click to expand...
My understanding is you're correct that this is what we currently have, and it looks like I erred in my thinking of exactly what is planned.

What I said above is that I believed that 5RAR is slated to convert to the amphibious role with the same structure as 2RAR.

However, doing some further Googling, I found this: "Under the proposed 2028 Army Objective Force, 1 Brigade will remain in Darwin and re role as an amphibious/littoral/light-combat manoeuvre element with the existing 5RAR, 8/12Regt RAA, 1CE Regt, 1CS Regt and 1CSS Bn, but be augmented with a re-raised 4RAR (Amph) in pre-landing-force configuration."

I imagine the review will clarify it all - and shake things up even more at the same time. Interesting times.
 
R

Richo99

Active Member
Anthony_B_78 said:
My understanding is you're correct that this is what we currently have, and it looks like I erred in my thinking of exactly what is planned.

What I said above is that I believed that 5RAR is slated to convert to the amphibious role with the same structure as 2RAR.

However, doing some further Googling, I found this: "Under the proposed 2028 Army Objective Force, 1 Brigade will remain in Darwin and re role as an amphibious/littoral/light-combat manoeuvre element with the existing 5RAR, 8/12Regt RAA, 1CE Regt, 1CS Regt and 1CSS Bn, but be augmented with a re-raised 4RAR (Amph) in pre-landing-force configuration."

I imagine the review will clarify it all - and shake things up even more at the same time. Interesting times.
Click to expand...
Apparently under AOF, 16 RWAR will also get some amphib capabilities. Whoda thunk?
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Massive said:
Can missiles be fired with the launched on the truck or does it need to be demounted?

Thanks in advance,

Massive
Click to expand...
There is actually 2 different launchers, the Mk 2 which seems to be dismounted and the more bare bones HML system which is fitted to the 2-door version of the Hawkeii and can be fired from the Vehicle.
 
OldTex

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Redlands18 said:
There is actually 2 different launchers, the Mk 2 which seems to be dismounted and the more bare bones HML system which is fitted to the 2-door version of the Hawkeii and can be fired from the Vehicle.
Click to expand...
Both the AIM-9 and AIM-120 missiles are supposedly able to be fired from either launcher. Perhaps one way of using the system could be to use AIM-120 from the HX-77 mounted launcher (Mk1?) for area defence and the AIM-9 from the Hawkei mounted launcher point defence. The latter configuration would be more akin to the Rapier system (but more mobile and effective).
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OldTex said:
Both the AIM-9 and AIM-120 missiles are supposedly able to be fired from either launcher. Perhaps one way of using the system could be to use AIM-120 from the HX-77 mounted launcher (Mk1?) for area defence and the AIM-9 from the Hawkei mounted launcher point defence. The latter configuration would be more akin to the Rapier system (but more mobile and effective).
Click to expand...
I am not 100% certain on this point, there are conflicting versions. I am happy to be corrected, But I do not recall having read or heard anywhere that AIM-9X (and various block upgrades) have been integrated with the HML only AIM-120C7 so far, to the very best of my knowledge.

AIM-120C7 is the reference weapons for Australia’s NASAMS II capability and will be the only effector employed at entry to service, though the canister launchers are integrated with AIM-9X / Block I/II and reportedly AMRAAM-ER. However as neither of those weapons have been acquired by Army as yet, they mean little at this point.
 
M

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I don’t think there is any new news here.

Just that they’re not going to make a decision on a major project before they’ve had the results of the comprehensive review of investment priorities they’ve commissioned. Which is sensible.

I don’t read anything in there which indicates a cancellation.

I’d expect an announcement either with or shortly after the DSR is released.
 
M

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Morgo said:
I don’t think there is any new news here.

Just that they’re not going to make a decision on a major project before they’ve had the results of the comprehensive review of investment priorities they’ve commissioned. Which is sensible.

I don’t read anything in there which indicates a cancellation.

I’d expect an announcement either with or shortly after the DSR is released.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether you think this project is likely to be considered a "priority for investment" by the Defence Strategic Review.
If you think Houston and Conroy will consider this project a priority then there is nothing to see here.
If you think they won't, then it is likely to be a target for savings which can be used for priority projects.
Personally I think they will find that other projects are a higher priority.

The other thing to consider is why have an urgent Strategic Review if you are planning to proceed with all the current projects?
Part of the reason for the review is to provide a justification for cancelling/downscaling projects which the Government doesn't support.
 
M

Morgo

Well-Known Member
MARKMILES77 said:
Depends on whether you think this project is likely to be considered a "priority for investment" by the Defence Strategic Review.
If you think Houston and Conroy will consider this project a priority then there is nothing to see here.
If you think they won't, then it is likely to be a target for savings which can be used for priority projects.
Personally I think they will find that other projects are a higher priority.

The other thing to consider is why have an urgent Strategic Review if you are planning to proceed with all the current projects?
Part of the reason for the review is to provide a justification for cancelling/downscaling projects which the Government doesn't support.
Click to expand...
I understand. But none of the words written here give an answer either way to your very valid questions.
 
A

Aussie optimist

Member
Surely a cancellation isn’t being considered. How much longer will our young diggers be expected to ride into battle, in vehicles purchased when their Granddad’s were in uniforms. To me this would be absolutely criminal. I understand that money is tight and we are looking down the barrel of a concerning period of history, however this is required pure and simple. The can cannot be kicked down the road any further. Rant off
 
Mark_Evans

Mark_Evans

Member
I guess we wait for March then. Interesting timing with Victorian election this weekend.
I wonder if they will commit to the first 150 with additional orders to follow in the fullness of time (allowing them to partially kick the can down the road just that bit further).
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
MARKMILES77 said:
Depends on whether you think this project is likely to be considered a "priority for investment" by the Defence Strategic Review.
If you think Houston and Conroy will consider this project a priority then there is nothing to see here.
If you think they won't, then it is likely to be a target for savings which can be used for priority projects.
Personally I think they will find that other projects are a higher priority.

The other thing to consider is why have an urgent Strategic Review if you are planning to proceed with all the current projects?
Part of the reason for the review is to provide a justification for cancelling/downscaling projects which the Government doesn't support.
Click to expand...
Yep.........we just don't know what's the future of tracked armour is for Army going forward until some clarity is given by the DSR.

What we do know is Boxer is replacing ASLAV.
We know we have US approval to purchase 121 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams of various types . Not completely sure if government approval to proceed has actually been given.
We know the M113 is old and of limited value as a front line unit in a high intensity conflict.
We are getting a tracked SPG.

So we are definitely at a cross road.

Tanks - we will either get them or not! Suggest we will not be playing around with the numbers proposed if the purchase goes forward.
M113 replacement. - well time is not on this platforms side. 50 years old, a decision will have to be made to finally ditch and replace with "something"

What that something looks like is the mystery.

If a Land 400 Phase 3 contender is announced with a dramatic cut in numbers; the numbers are in reality a bit academic, as its a long term project with a build over many years. No doubt a lot will happen with numbers in that time.

If its a definite no to acquiring an IFV ,then I cannot see the M113's serving for much longer.

What that does to armys composition I'd hate to guess.
What that would do to Army's ability to give government a full range of military options, I'd hate to contemplate.

March 2023 is not that far away.

Cheers S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top