Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Riverine is a significantly different environment to littoral. This sounds like even the Army don’t know what they want or is expected of them. A littoral patrol in Australia’s North out of Darwin, Exmouth or Cairns would probably need a vessel with a operating Radius of around 2000kms and a decent load capacity to disembark 10-20 troops plus vehicles… which indicates it won’t be a small vessel suited to riverine operations …… well not far upstream at best. Unless there is other rivers they have in mind?
You just described the Land 8710 phase 1 vessel, the LMV-M, which will be a 40-45m LCM, to replace the LCM-8. The announcement of the winner of this project is in fact due now. This is a different project, these vessels will need to be transported to the area of operations by anything from modified Arafura's, the LMV-H right up to the Canberra's.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This concept of CV90 type 'littoral' assault boats hasn't been working out well Ukraine. Plenty of video of them being tracked and destroyed, even by less than cutting edge Turkish drones. Not fast enough or low profile enough to evade detection and way way too vulnerable after detection. One of the major problems is fast boat = massive easy to see wake. The same problem bedevilled PT and MTBs in WW2 particularly in tropical seas with their added luminescence issues. I don't get the littoral logic, especially from a defence of Australia perspective. If an IFV operating in the insane clutter of inhabited terrain is too vulnerable, surely a hot boat with a massive glittering wake on a dissimilar predictable sea is much much more vulnerable way to transport troops. If small unit ground forces need to be inserted into coastal areas, surely a helicopter or better yet a tiltrotor is a far more tactically agile platform.
This is where a mothership and overwatch comes in.

People tend to look at capabilities in isolation and see certain new technologies as transformational and able to win wars on their own.

The truth is there will be a counter for every new capability and whoever comes up with the most effective complementary use of, not only new tech, but existing, or even superceded tech, will win the day.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
This concept of CV90 type 'littoral' assault boats hasn't been working out well Ukraine. Plenty of video of them being tracked and destroyed, even by less than cutting edge Turkish drones. Not fast enough or low profile enough to evade detection and way way too vulnerable after detection. One of the major problems is fast boat = massive easy to see wake. The same problem bedevilled PT and MTBs in WW2 particularly in tropical seas with their added luminescence issues. I don't get the littoral logic, especially from a defence of Australia perspective. If an IFV operating in the insane clutter of inhabited terrain is too vulnerable, surely a hot boat with a massive glittering wake on a dissimilar predictable sea is much much more vulnerable way to transport troops. If small unit ground forces need to be inserted into coastal areas, surely a helicopter or better yet a tiltrotor is a far more tactically agile platform.
What gets me is that anybody who has ever been across the north from Exmouth to Darwin….. friend or foe …once you land then what? There is frig all roads and tracks that are passable at most times and why would anyone want to land there anyway? The towns that are near the coast (not many of them) are better serviced by road and air. There is nothing there ( I guess I could say the same about Adelaide ) If someone was to land a force between Darwin and Exmouth I’d be say good luck with that fellas. Where are they going to go once they get ashore? It’s such inhospitable country between midges, mozzies, heat, brown snakes , crocs and sharks they would be begging someone to kill them within a month. If someone did take a town they are not going anywhere far. Single roads in would be award winning kill zones. That said I get why we need to have A Patrol & Protection force but I’m not thinking like a USMC capability. I can’t think of a lot than can be done up there offshore within 100km of the mainland that can’t be done with chopper or plane offa larger ship or from land.
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
Momma Mia! Something like this little beauty, the Swedish Stridsbåt 90 H Combat Boat 90 (CB90), Sweden (naval-technology.com) could probably fit the bill.
My memory isn't great at the best of times, but I seem to recall Abe mentioning some years ago that Birdon Marine held a license to build CB90's.
Co-incidentally they are expanding their Port Macquarie operation at the present time. I wonder if they know something that we do not
MB
 

Lolcake

Active Member
Unfortunate we will not be able the leverage the newer T901 engine upgrade program for our the Blackhawks and Apache's. With the t700 being at the end of its tenure. These give a massive increase in range and performance. Has anyone heard if this is a consideration for the Apache's?
 
Last edited:

MickB

Well-Known Member
This concept of CV90 type 'littoral' assault boats hasn't been working out well Ukraine. Plenty of video of them being tracked and destroyed, even by less than cutting edge Turkish drones. Not fast enough or low profile enough to evade detection and way way too vulnerable after detection. One of the major problems is fast boat = massive easy to see wake. The same problem bedevilled PT and MTBs in WW2 particularly in tropical seas with their added luminescence issues. I don't get the littoral logic, especially from a defence of Australia perspective. If an IFV operating in the insane clutter of inhabited terrain is too vulnerable, surely a hot boat with a massive glittering wake on a dissimilar predictable sea is much much more vulnerable way to transport troops. If small unit ground forces need to be inserted into coastal areas, surely a helicopter or better yet a tiltrotor is a far more tactically agile platform.
Just because they can go fast doesn't mean they have to all the time.
Plenty of examples of E boats conducting night ambushes of coastal shipping during WW2.

Yes I know radar is now better, so why not add a bit of stealth. Skjold class anybody.

And yes this is all moot because such vessels are not (AFAIK) in the ADFs conops.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Unfortunate we will not be able the leverage the newer T901 engine upgrade for the Blackhawks and Apache's. These give a massive increase in range and performance. Has anyone heard if this is a consideration for the Apache's?
It’s still in design and testing phase so not even the US Army can leverage them, as yet.

Both platforms will likely have a capability assurance project linked to them, so if the cost / capability benefit is there in future years to retrofit these engines, I am quite sure AAVN will look closely at them…
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Riverine is a significantly different environment to littoral. This sounds like even the Army don’t know what they want or is expected of them. A littoral patrol in Australia’s North out of Darwin, Exmouth or Cairns would probably need a vessel with a operating Radius of around 2000kms and a decent load capacity to disembark 10-20 troops plus vehicles… which indicates it won’t be a small vessel suited to riverine operations …… well not far upstream at best. Unless there is other rivers they have in mind?
Glad you mentioned those three towns as it highlights the sort of distance required of a vessel to reach a coastal mid point in between these centres and return.

The LMV-M will need sufficient sea legs to accomplish realistic Australian distances.
If you are going these distances, the vessel will need to be of a respectable size for fuel, services, crew comfort and stability.


If you are going these distances, it will be a waste not to carry a respectable number of vehicles.
I hope when selecting the future LMV-M this is all taken into account.

Hopefully a decision shortly

Cheers s
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
A interesting read for what may be be Army's future direction.

Rather limited analysis sadly. The continued reference to the USMC, and to recent USMC reforms, are a meaningless distraction. The USMC has the US Army. The Australian Army has the Australian Army.

The key takeaway from the DSR from an Army perspective is committing to a force design that confirms that the ADF will have no real land power for the forseeable future.

It's a choice that can be justified, though I have not seen it called out as being what it is anywhere.

Regards,

Massive
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Rather limited analysis sadly. The continued reference to the USMC, and to recent USMC reforms, are a meaningless distraction. The USMC has the US Army. The Australian Army has the Australian Army.

The key takeaway from the DSR from an Army perspective is committing to a force design that confirms that the ADF will have no real land power for the forseeable future.

It's a choice that can be justified, though I have not seen it called out as being what it is anywhere.

Regards,

Massive
Referencing PLAN ANZAC, one option may be for the Aussie Army to avoid USMC type capabilities instead concentrating on traditional army capabilities. Meanwhile let the NZ Army become the Australasian version of the USMC / Royal Marines. That would save a replication of roles by the two armies and arguably provide better capabilities for Australasia.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
From an article in the Australian. Missile force goes to Adelaide as combat troops go north — The Australian

https://archive.is/8Lk2J < no paywall

I’m a bit confused …in one part is says up to 1000 infantry and Armoured will move to Darwin and Townsville but then follows with Adelaide based? Is it making room fir the new brigade? Where will they be drawn from?

A new army brigade will be established in Adelaide to operate mobile long-range strike and air defence batteries under a major shake-up of the service that will see key combat units moved from South Australia to the Top End.

The Australian can reveal the army’s new “order of battle” will be unveiled later this week, implementing recommendations of the independent Defence Strategic Review to restructure the army for operations in the island chains to the country’s north. It will re-raise the army’s World War I-era 10th Brigade, which saw action on the Western Front, creating a “future-focused” unit to operate High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) capabilities.

In the army’s biggest structural change in more than a decade, up to 1000 infantry and armoured regiment soldiers are to be relocated from Adelaide to Darwin and potentially Townsville, in a move that will cause disruptions for many Defence families.

The new missile unit will be far from Australia’s northern approaches, which the DSR said should be the Australian Defence Force’s “primary area of military interest”, but its SA location will offer access to the world-class Cultana and Woomera training ranges.

US Studies Centre defence program director Peter Dean, who supported DSR leads Stephen Smith and Angus Houston, said there was “no perfect place” to locate the new units, but Adelaide offered superior training opportunities. “It’s about the ranges,” he said. “It’s the only place you can fire them and do training properly. (The missile batteries) are easy to get to the north via railway or air.”

The government announced in August that it would more than double its order of Lockheed Martin HIMARS launchers to 42, for delivery from 2026-27. The army has introduced Kongsberg-Raytheon NASAMS batteries for short-range air defence already, and the capability is expected to be expanded for medium-range roles as part of a new integrated air and missile defence system.

Defence Minister Richard Marles and Chief of Army Simon Stuart are scheduled to announce the army’s new structure on Thursday, which flows from the DSR’s focus on northern Australia and the government’s decision to slash the number of new infantry fighting vehicles the service will get from 450 to 129. The latter decision meant there would be too few IFVs to share equally among the army’s three roughly similar combat brigades, requiring a reorganisation of the force.

The changes are expected to include the relocation of the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment from Adelaide’s Edinburgh Barracks to Robertson Barracks in Darwin, where it would combine with the 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. The 1st Armoured Regiment, which operates M1A1 Abrams tanks, is also set to be moved from Adelaide, and is rumoured to be heading to Townsville, where it would be united with another tank unit – the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. The changes reverse a 2010 decision – which cost about $1bn at the time – to shift the units to Adelaide because the wet season was making year-round training too difficult.

What we gained when we moved to Adelaide was access to quality training 12 months a year, meaning you didn’t have a monsoon that affected you for half the time,” he said.


“You doubled your effective training time and reduced the cost of dragging equipment down the Stuart Highway, which was what we were doing prior to the barracks in Adelaide being opened.”


Major General McLachlan said there were upsides to locating the army’s tanks in one place in Townsville, however, allowing the creation of a training “centre of excellence” there.


But he said the move would leave behind two generations of purpose-built tank training facilities in Darwin and Adelaide.


“I guess the question we’ve all been asking is, how do we find ourselves in a position where the billion dollars we spent moving armoured and mechanised forces to Adelaide so they can have access to world-class training ranges is no longer valid?” Major General McLachlan said.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
From an article in the Australian. Missile force goes to Adelaide as combat troops go north — The Australian

I’m a bit confused …in one part is says up to 1000 infantry and Armoured will move to Darwin and Townsville but then follows with Adelaide based? Is it making room fir the new brigade? Where will they be drawn from?

A new army brigade will be established in Adelaide to operate mobile long-range strike and air defence batteries under a major shake-up of the service that will see key combat units moved from South Australia to the Top End.

The Australian can reveal the army’s new “order of battle” will be unveiled later this week, implementing recommendations of the independent Defence Strategic Review to restructure the army for operations in the island chains to the country’s north. It will re-raise the army’s World War I-era 10th Brigade, which saw action on the Western Front, creating a “future-focused” unit to operate High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) capabilities.

In the army’s biggest structural change in more than a decade, up to 1000 infantry and armoured regiment soldiers are to be relocated from Adelaide to Darwin and potentially Townsville, in a move that will cause disruptions for many Defence families.

The new missile unit will be far from Australia’s northern approaches, which the DSR said should be the Australian Defence Force’s “primary area of military interest”, but its SA location will offer access to the world-class Cultana and Woomera training ranges.

US Studies Centre defence program director Peter Dean, who supported DSR leads Stephen Smith and Angus Houston, said there was “no perfect place” to locate the new units, but Adelaide offered superior training opportunities. “It’s about the ranges,” he said. “It’s the only place you can fire them and do training properly. (The missile batteries) are easy to get to the north via railway or air.”

The government announced in August that it would more than double its order of Lockheed Martin HIMARS launchers to 42, for delivery from 2026-27. The army has introduced Kongsberg-Raytheon NASAMS batteries for short-range air defence already, and the capability is expected to be expanded for medium-range roles as part of a new integrated air and missile defence system.

Defence Minister Richard Marles and Chief of Army Simon Stuart are scheduled to announce the army’s new structure on Thursday, which flows from the DSR’s focus on northern Australia and the government’s decision to slash the number of new infantry fighting vehicles the service will get from 450 to 129. The latter decision meant there would be too few IFVs to share equally among the army’s three roughly similar combat brigades, requiring a reorganisation of the force.

The changes are expected to include the relocation of the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment from Adelaide’s Edinburgh Barracks to Robertson Barracks in Darwin, where it would combine with the 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. The 1st Armoured Regiment, which operates M1A1 Abrams tanks, is also set to be moved from Adelaide, and is rumoured to be heading to Townsville, where it would be united with another tank unit – the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. The changes reverse a 2010 decision – which cost about $1bn at the time – to shift the units to Adelaide because the wet season was making year-round training too difficult.

What we gained when we moved to Adelaide was access to quality training 12 months a year, meaning you didn’t have a monsoon that affected you for half the time,” he said.


“You doubled your effective training time and reduced the cost of dragging equipment down the Stuart Highway, which was what we were doing prior to the barracks in Adelaide being opened.”


Major General McLachlan said there were upsides to locating the army’s tanks in one place in Townsville, however, allowing the creation of a training “centre of excellence” there.


But he said the move would leave behind two generations of purpose-built tank training facilities in Darwin and Adelaide.


“I guess the question we’ve all been asking is, how do we find ourselves in a position where the billion dollars we spent moving armoured and mechanised forces to Adelaide so they can have access to world-class training ranges is no longer valid?” Major General McLachlan said.
The Australian article is behind a paywall, here is a news story that confirms the story.
New brigade established in Adelaide following major army operations shake-up (msn.com)
The Infantry and Armoured Units are currently based in Adelaide and are being moved North. Most of this was known already, except the re-raising of 10th Bde.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Australian article is behind a paywall, here is a news story that confirms the story.
New brigade established in Adelaide following major army operations shake-up (msn.com)
The Infantry and Armoured Units are currently based in Adelaide and are being moved North. Most of this was known already, except the re-raising of 10th Bde.
That explains it. I was at a function recently and 10 BDE was mentioned, I didn't have any context, but this now makes sense.

One thing that does concern me is that one of the advantages of having 1 Armd in Adelaide was the ease of integrating members on different SERCAT levels.

Quite a few talented senior people were moving between full time contracts and part time, where they would often undertake contract roles with government and/or industry supporting critical projects. This move will reduce workplace flexibility.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Referencing PLAN ANZAC, one option may be for the Aussie Army to avoid USMC type capabilities instead concentrating on traditional army capabilities. Meanwhile let the NZ Army become the Australasian version of the USMC / Royal Marines. That would save a replication of roles by the two armies and arguably provide better capabilities for Australasia.
I think the issue here is what happens when there is a situation that needs an amphibious response where Australian and NZ interests (or at least views of interests) diverge?

Say, for example, there are significant elements of the PLAN, PLAAF or PLA Rocket Force deployed to Honiara, and a blockade of Australia (but not NZ) was declared. Would NZ be happy to intervene in that circumstance? Probably. But should Australia take the risk that they won’t? Probably not, especially given the relatively higher apparent penetration of NZ politics by the United Work Front.

I have no doubt when the chips are really down that our Kiwi brothers would be all in, and so in some ways I think it actually makes more sense for NZ to have a relatively heavier complementary force using common equipment. A couple of mechanised battalions equipped with LAND400 vehicles (with appropriate naval connectors) would be very welcome additional mass in Australiasia.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
I think the issue here is what happens when there is a situation that needs an amphibious response where Australian and NZ interests (or at least views of interests) diverge?
Probably quite a few other issues to sort out first before this one.

I doubt the GOD in either country would be comfortable with this arrangement.

Regards,

Massive
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Referencing PLAN ANZAC, one option may be for the Aussie Army to avoid USMC type capabilities instead concentrating on traditional army capabilities. Meanwhile let the NZ Army become the Australasian version of the USMC / Royal Marines. That would save a replication of roles by the two armies and arguably provide better capabilities for Australasia.
While I have always felt your suggestion that modelling the NZ Army on BRIMAR was an excellent one (and I feel this is a great model for an Australian Army Littoral/amphibious brigade) the main problem is that the Australian Army has no land power to deploy as a follow on to a successful NZ Army initial landing.

In the end, land power matters. You either have it or you do not.

The plan is currently for the Australian Army to have no real land power.

Regards,

Massive
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Probably quite a few other issues to sort out first before this one.

I doubt the GOD in either country would be comfortable with this arrangement.

Regards,

Massive
Agreed. Both are sovereign nations and need sovereign capabilities. But an interesting thought experiment.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
From an article in the Australian. Missile force goes to Adelaide as combat troops go north — The Australian

https://archive.is/8Lk2J < no paywall

I’m a bit confused …in one part is says up to 1000 infantry and Armoured will move to Darwin and Townsville but then follows with Adelaide based? Is it making room fir the new brigade? Where will they be drawn from?

A new army brigade will be established in Adelaide to operate mobile long-range strike and air defence batteries under a major shake-up of the service that will see key combat units moved from South Australia to the Top End.

The Australian can reveal the army’s new “order of battle” will be unveiled later this week, implementing recommendations of the independent Defence Strategic Review to restructure the army for operations in the island chains to the country’s north. It will re-raise the army’s World War I-era 10th Brigade, which saw action on the Western Front, creating a “future-focused” unit to operate High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) capabilities.

In the army’s biggest structural change in more than a decade, up to 1000 infantry and armoured regiment soldiers are to be relocated from Adelaide to Darwin and potentially Townsville, in a move that will cause disruptions for many Defence families.

The new missile unit will be far from Australia’s northern approaches, which the DSR said should be the Australian Defence Force’s “primary area of military interest”, but its SA location will offer access to the world-class Cultana and Woomera training ranges.

US Studies Centre defence program director Peter Dean, who supported DSR leads Stephen Smith and Angus Houston, said there was “no perfect place” to locate the new units, but Adelaide offered superior training opportunities. “It’s about the ranges,” he said. “It’s the only place you can fire them and do training properly. (The missile batteries) are easy to get to the north via railway or air.”

The government announced in August that it would more than double its order of Lockheed Martin HIMARS launchers to 42, for delivery from 2026-27. The army has introduced Kongsberg-Raytheon NASAMS batteries for short-range air defence already, and the capability is expected to be expanded for medium-range roles as part of a new integrated air and missile defence system.

Defence Minister Richard Marles and Chief of Army Simon Stuart are scheduled to announce the army’s new structure on Thursday, which flows from the DSR’s focus on northern Australia and the government’s decision to slash the number of new infantry fighting vehicles the service will get from 450 to 129. The latter decision meant there would be too few IFVs to share equally among the army’s three roughly similar combat brigades, requiring a reorganisation of the force.

The changes are expected to include the relocation of the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment from Adelaide’s Edinburgh Barracks to Robertson Barracks in Darwin, where it would combine with the 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. The 1st Armoured Regiment, which operates M1A1 Abrams tanks, is also set to be moved from Adelaide, and is rumoured to be heading to Townsville, where it would be united with another tank unit – the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. The changes reverse a 2010 decision – which cost about $1bn at the time – to shift the units to Adelaide because the wet season was making year-round training too difficult.

What we gained when we moved to Adelaide was access to quality training 12 months a year, meaning you didn’t have a monsoon that affected you for half the time,” he said.


“You doubled your effective training time and reduced the cost of dragging equipment down the Stuart Highway, which was what we were doing prior to the barracks in Adelaide being opened.”


Major General McLachlan said there were upsides to locating the army’s tanks in one place in Townsville, however, allowing the creation of a training “centre of excellence” there.


But he said the move would leave behind two generations of purpose-built tank training facilities in Darwin and Adelaide.


“I guess the question we’ve all been asking is, how do we find ourselves in a position where the billion dollars we spent moving armoured and mechanised forces to Adelaide so they can have access to world-class training ranges is no longer valid?” Major General McLachlan said.
So we get some more details later this week.

Hopefully we get get some beneficial clarity as to what the total number of armoured, mechanised, motorized and amphibious SQN /COYs required going forward and how they are to be distributed across the Brigades.
Equally important the number of Engineers / Sigs / Artillery and CSSB.

Hopefully some reality to whatever is proposed.

Cheers S
 
Top