Well based on what has been discussed here it would seem we would have an upcoming surplus of M777s, M1A1s, ASLAVs that could find a home over there without significantly degrading the ADF in the short term…that’s assuming that replacement kit is delivered without too much delay and the DSR doesn’t change the orders drastically…. Could probably add to that FA18s, MRH90 and Tigers. Yes there will be all the training and sustainment arguments to not send any of this along with foreign sale obligations.
Meanwhile in the working Army -
"An Australian Army soldier from 10th Light Horse Regiment conducts live-fire training serial with a mounted MAG58 machine gun in a Hawkei Protected Mobility Vehicle during training Exercise Waler's Walk at Bindoon Training Area, Western Australia." ADF Image Library
"An Australian Army soldier from 10th Light Horse Regiment conducts live-fire training serial with a mounted MAG58 machine gun in a Hawkei Protected Mobility Vehicle during training Exercise Waler's Walk at Bindoon Training Area, Western Australia." ADF Image Library
This has been percolating in my subconscious for a bit and has finally jelled.Yep, his weird rantings masquerading as an ‘editorial’ put me off. On one hand ‘bagging the brass’ for all his perceived ills in the world and the next, moaning about his sudden lack of access to ADF activities.?
Doesn’t strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed...
But my personal favourite is his habit of adding his own little ‘cool’ sounding designations to things, perhaps with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink - look at me with the real goss, attitude thrown in for good measure.
The “MH-60R Romeo Strikehawk” is his current one, but there have been plenty of others.
Lockheed Martin - MH-60R Seahawk.
MH-60R SEAHAWK® Helicopters
Experience unmatched maritime capabilities with MH-60R SEAHAWK® helicopters. Its mission system ensures actionable knowledge, empowering target engagement.www.lockheedmartin.com
US Navy - MH-60R Seahawk.
MH-60R Seahawk
As the Navy's next generation submarine hunter and anti-surface warfare helicopter, the MH-60R Seahawk is the cornerstone of the Navy's Helicopter Concept of Operations.www.navy.mil
RAN - MH-60R Seahawk.
John Hunter Farrell - no, no. It’s REALLY called the Strikehawk…
It’s the Gavin of naval aviation!
A quick wander over to his website shows his two latest ‘scoops’ being first of class trials for “Strikehawk” on Choules and something about Army focussing on ‘warfighting’… Gosh darn it, where DOES he get such wonderful info? Must be ‘truly’ connected… (to the internet).
”Strikehawk”
Defence Imagery: 20230313ran8648679_0040.jpg
images.defence.gov.au
Army ‘warfighting’ and operating dispersed artillery capabilities…
Defence Imagery: 20230302adf8443968_089.jpg
images.defence.gov.au
Apparently people actually pay him for this…
This publication is the perfect example of the issues defence is having with elitism, exceptionalism, bullying and victimisation undermining capability.
Gung ho tossers who believe themselves to be elite (without any real justification), looking down on everyone else, with particular hatred and disdain for anyone who calls out their behaviour.
John Hunter Farrell's rants show exactly why defence are trying to reform, there is a real disconnect between what is acceptable, and what a minority believe to be acceptable.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
www.abc.net.au
LAND 400 Ph.3 cut to 129 vehicles and only a single mechanised battalion to be deployed.
2nd SP gun regiment axed.
Who would have thought putting Stephen Smith in charge of this would lead to such an outcome?
The argument that the cuts are needed in LAND 400 in order to fund missile programs is misplaced, because overall defense spending should increase to pay for both needs. It feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul type defense planning.
Isn't this the same Stephen Smith that axed LAND 17 SPH back in the day?
Isn't this the same Stephen Smith that axed LAND 17 SPH back in the day?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
As both systems are going to be built in Australia, at least the orders can be increased down the road if this turns out to be the blunder I think it is. One thing I do like is a speed up and increase in the size of the ADF Amphib fleet.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
LAND 400 Ph.3 cut to 129 vehicles and only a single mechanised battalion to be deployed.
2nd SP gun regiment axed.
Who would have thought putting Stephen Smith in charge of this would lead to such an outcome?
Well will they? With 129 units will either party commit to building a facility for what is quite a bit under 1/3 the original build quantity? Let’s see but the per unit cost has to increase.
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
Of course, it may make sense to deploy 20-30 vehicles (1-2 companies) to each normal combat brigade ( 3 or four if we include the WA Reserve Brigade being formed now) and keep the rest as training and spares. This would share learnings across Army rather than just one Brigade. Support and ancillary vehicles could be provided by legacy vehicle types. Purchase a small ongong number each year, if this is possible, to bring up 3 or 4 mechanised battalions and supporting vehicles. We do need to protect the long range fires.
The delay in the release of a public version of the review has had me increasingly worried that the final outcome will turn out to be a damp squid!Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
LAND 400 Ph.3 cut to 129 vehicles and only a single mechanised battalion to be deployed.
2nd SP gun regiment axed.
Who would have thought putting Stephen Smith in charge of this would lead to such an outcome?
I always worried about Stephen Smith's selection for this role. IMO he was a disaster as Defence Minister.
Having said that it appears that the public version will only include recommendations that will be implemented by the government, in which case we will have to wait for decades for the release of cabinet documents to find out what recommendations made by Smith and Houston have been rejected, watered down or postponed indefinitely.
There has been enough leaked for us not to be too surprised re army cuts to anything that is armoured, but I am also getting increasingly pessimistic about what will be recommended for navy and airforce.
Tas
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Don't forget both designs are to be built in existing factories, Redback in Geelong alongside the AS9/10* or the Lynx at MILVEHCOE in Brisbane alongside the Boxers.
*Factory currently under construction.
The reduction in build numbers is not good.
I hope this is more one of these contract things, where there is a plan and contract to build more but perhaps under a different deal with perhaps lower specs or fit out. But I am doubtful.
Surely the value of actual equipment is seen now, with the ukraine conflict, showing that the idea that you can just easily acquire more from elsewhere being very much problematic, and certainly not possible if a war is on. While refitting existing hulls lof older or lower spec is possible, if you don't have the hulls, there is nothing.
I hope this is more one of these contract things, where there is a plan and contract to build more but perhaps under a different deal with perhaps lower specs or fit out. But I am doubtful.
Surely the value of actual equipment is seen now, with the ukraine conflict, showing that the idea that you can just easily acquire more from elsewhere being very much problematic, and certainly not possible if a war is on. While refitting existing hulls lof older or lower spec is possible, if you don't have the hulls, there is nothing.
Which is the other side of the equation, heavy cuts for what at this stage doesn't look transformational, at this point in the short to medium term for the navy or airforce.
Fingers crossed production is still initiated as opposed to an overseas buy. Throw in some exports and we can buy more down the track.Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
LAND 400 Ph.3 cut to 129 vehicles and only a single mechanised battalion to be deployed.
2nd SP gun regiment axed.
Who would have thought putting Stephen Smith in charge of this would lead to such an outcome?
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Looking at all the equipment noted, there does not appear to be much room to get rid of M777 - especially considering information further below in the thread regarding one SPH regiment. M1A1 and ASLAV could certainly be provided, with US input, but both fleets are increasingly worn.
F/A-18s are still being sold to private industry, as noted. ARH Tiger and MRH-90 could both be be given, though will require considerable training and sustainment, and will likely require both US and EU input.
The bigger problem I see is that in removing the majority of these capabilities, there will be a capability gap. Boxer CRV are currently being introduced and has already reached IOC, though M1A2 won't reach IOC until 2025, AH-64E not until 2026, and while I can't find anything on IOC for UH-60M atm, IOC may exist towards the end of next year given first helicopters are set to be delivered sometime this year. These timeframes may be acceptable IOT provide older equipment, or not, though Ukraine would probably want them sooner rather than later.
Transport and utility vehicles are, by comparison, relatively cheap. M113 perhaps not now, but we still aim to retain Bendigo as a production facility - giving us room to provide Bushmaster or Hawkei quickly and fill out the gaps with what we can re-produce.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Similiar information in Today's "The Australian".
Likely implies a delibrate government leak to media outlets to get the bad news out there before the official report is released.
Likely implies a delibrate government leak to media outlets to get the bad news out there before the official report is released.
Pure speculation but I wonder if there will be a reorganisation of land forces, ie instead of three like brigades, a single heavy armoured or mech brigade and multiple wheeled mech / motor brigades.
I am not so worried about the reduction of SPGs (assuming they will support a single heavy brigade).
HIMARS is a game changer so if the other brigades are seen more as hardened force protection of our improved long range fires and vital assets it makes sense.
A single deployable expeditionary heavy brigade will still be more than we have had since WWII.
I am not so worried about the reduction of SPGs (assuming they will support a single heavy brigade).
HIMARS is a game changer so if the other brigades are seen more as hardened force protection of our improved long range fires and vital assets it makes sense.
A single deployable expeditionary heavy brigade will still be more than we have had since WWII.
1x single mechanised battalion does not a ‘heavy’ brigade make, however. At best it will be an unbalanced, non-sustainable administrative formation to allow for desperately scraped together disparate sub-unit level capabilities added into a taskforce that can neither be sustained, nor rotated without a crash program to acquire the necessary capability to sustain a force for more than a few months…
Nor does it allow for any attrition whatsoever. At least the ADF is as one on that front… Apparently the DSR envisages our need for advanced missile capabilities for a near future war scenario which must be acquired at the expense of all other capability, but doesn’t envisage any attrition to our forces...
Pretty ”strategic” I’d say. Imagine the self-deceptions you’d have to invest in to imagine that you are about to go to go to war in near time with a greater than peer nation, yet structure your force for no attrition whatsoever?
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Possibly yes and I would throw in the early major increase in Amphib lift as well as a possible pointer and what about the JSS project?
It's all great to get HIMARS and land based AShM systems but if you are going to deploy them you are going to need to defend them and re-supply them and that means IFVs, ARVs, as well as Bushmasters, Hawkeiis, NASAMS, Trucks and I am not sure someone like Smith truly understands this, as the saying goes, they don't operate in isolation.
Looking three or four armoured infantry companies, similarly mounted support elements, perhaps a fully tracked heavy ACR, concentrating all the tanks, all the SPGs, armoured engineers etc. That is a brigade.
Everything else gets Boxers, Bushmasters and Hawkeis.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
It is not speculation; we've discussed here previously that the Army is moving away from the old Plan Beersheba of three like brigades. This specifically impacted on 1st Brigade. 1st Armoured Regiment and 5RAR in South Australia now come under 9th Brigade, which will become a regular/reserve outfit.
I share the disappointment at what is being suggested is a deep cut to Land 400 Phase 3. I strongly suspect that it will prove to be what the DSR recommends. My hope is the government will announce it is not going so far and commits to, say, 300 IFVs, but that's only a hope.
I think we do need to keep in perspective the likely thinking here. Yes, it is easy to make the argument that we had hundreds of M113s and they are well, well overdue for replacement, but it is not necessarily the case that they needed to be replaced on a one for one basis, especially when we remember that every dollar spent comes with an opportunity cost in that it could have been spent on something else.
One can make the case that a "heavy" - very much more armoured than in the past - Australian Army is unsuited to our region. Rather, it seems to be more directed to refighting the last wars, being in Iraq/Afghanistan, where armour is of greater utility. Yes, we all know armour saves lives practically everywhere, but much of the Asia-Pacific is not really suited to armoured formations. If you think about, say, Timor-Leste, you can't deploy and sustain large armoured formations there. The terrain and transport infrastructure isn't suitable, and then there is the lack of maritime transport. That is not to say some armour wouldn't be useful; it was - and it would.
If the result down the track is that 9th Brigade is our "heavy" formation, that won't be the worst outcome. Two battle groups based around the Abrams, the Boxer and the new IFV, and a SPH regiment, plus armoured engineering and other supporting sub-units - it would offer strong capabilities. If we're drawn back to the Middle East, you could see it able to deploy a reinforced battle group, and if needed in our region, then it could provide mixed combat teams for amphibious operations.
Is slashing the size of the army's armoured brigades for a few weeks worth of amunition really a good idea?
If the Ukraine/Russia confict is anything to go by they will chew through those missiles in pretty short order during a hot war. The lesson I am taking from the Ukraine is that we had better make sure we have a sovereign weapons manufacturing capability rather than relying on a finite stockpile of missiles.
If the Ukraine/Russia confict is anything to go by they will chew through those missiles in pretty short order during a hot war. The lesson I am taking from the Ukraine is that we had better make sure we have a sovereign weapons manufacturing capability rather than relying on a finite stockpile of missiles.