Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Takao

The Bunker Group
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.
Ah yes, because Townsville has none of the disadvantages of Darwin - no retention, weather, education, employment or health problems up there!

I'd love to know what the fetish is with Townsville. Like moving helicopters out of Darwin because weather and distance and putting them into .... Townsville. Where TC and wet seasons never occur and it's a 2 h run to the Port of Brisbane. And...you'll have to build shelters for all of the verse what's at Robbo now. Ignore the fact that, MAJGEN McLachlan is correct - we moved south because you can't use the trianing areas up there in the wet. What's changed?

Let us be blunt. The majority of Australia lives between Adelaide - Brisbane - Melbourne. That is where the majority of the ADF should be. I loved my Darwin time and the family would move back in a heartbeat if there was a job there for me, but it'll come at a price that may not be payable. As my parents and the in-laws get older, as the kids do year 10/11/12/uni, as my spouse moves ahead in their employment - it all gets hard.

Northern Australia is important. Two things spring to mind though - why put my logistics nodes on the front lines? And if I can't retain enough for the ADF because I'm scattered - what am I going to defend the north with?
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Anyone remember what the SASRs role was in the gulf war? They were good at it.
Locating and targeting, sometimes destroying high value targets, like scuds (think himars) only 42 to locate and destroy.....and without infantry to protect them.....I am having flash backs of the 80s again under Hawke and Keating. Next election will see yet another review, re structure if the Libs win.....poor defence for the next 10 to 20 years.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
It was just over a month ago that the mention of integrating the Adelaide part of 1 BDE with 9 BDE was 'leaked'. Then it was mentioned that 5 and 7 RAR would reamalgmate, while at the same time there were suggestions that 5 (or 5/7) RAR would become a mirror of 2 RAR and operate in the littoral maneuver space. Now there are suggestions (i.e. leaked) that 9 BDE plan will not go ahead, but significant parts of 1 BDE will now be moved out of Adelaide. But at the same time 9 BDE has completed a culminating force generation exercise (EX RHINO RUN), which saw part-time and full-time members from 1st Armoured Regiment; 7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment; 10th/27th Battalion, the Royal South Australia Regiment; 9th Combat Service Support Battalion; and Headquarters 9th Brigade, operating as a BDE.
It might be that 5/7 RAR become littoral infantry, whilst 1 ARMOURED merge with 2 CAV in Townsville.
So where will the artillery Regt to operate HiMARS come from? It might be that 8/12 Regt could be the ones to provide the core. It would seem to be excessive to have a full REGT to support a single battalion supposedly tasked with littoral operations.
The other question of where are the SPGs and the IFVs will go when they are delivered might be answered when the new ORBAT is announced.
 
Last edited:

Maranoa

Active Member
The Australian Army's now canned Army Objective Force 2028 reorganisation stated that 9 Brigade would get the first Huntsman self propelled arty assigned to a reraised 9th Regiment RAA (the now disbanded holding unit for the ARes mortars or Light Battery structure). The same AOF 2028 document indicated that first artillery rocket unit would be the new 14th Regiment RAA which would be assigned to the new 8th Fires Brigade to be raised in Adelaide which Marles now wants to call the 10th Brigade and pretend he is raising another brigade when all he has done is rename the new missile unit that has been planned for years. All of this was leaked by accident when the ADF released a photo of a Brigadier giving a lecture in 2020 with the powerpoint slide readable behind him. The complete Army Objective Force 2028 order of battle was published in Defender back in November 2020. Army released a few details of the planned expanded field force in 2021 and 22. Now all gone thanks to DSR and Mr Smith and Houston.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Australian Army's now canned Army Objective Force 2028 reorganisation stated that 9 Brigade would get the first Huntsman self propelled arty assigned to a reraised 9th Regiment RAA (the now disbanded holding unit for the ARes mortars or Light Battery structure). The same AOF 2028 document indicated that first artillery rocket unit would be the new 14th Regiment RAA which would be assigned to the new 8th Fires Brigade to be raised in Adelaide which Marles now wants to call the 10th Brigade and pretend he is raising another brigade when all he has done is rename the new missile unit that has been planned for years. All of this was leaked by accident when the ADF released a photo of a Brigadier giving a lecture in 2020 with the powerpoint slide readable behind him. The complete Army Objective Force 2028 order of battle was published in Defender back in November 2020. Army released a few details of the planned expanded field force in 2021 and 22. Now all gone thanks to DSR and Mr Smith and Houston.
What could possibly go wrong when when you hand a review of the whole of defence over to an outsourcing mad lawyer and an ex airforce helicopter pilot.

The fallout from the DSR is almost coming across now as, "it's not a fast jet so it doesn't matter", we just bought some new fast jets, so it's all good".
 

knightrider4

Active Member
What could possibly go wrong when when you hand a review of the whole of defence over to an outsourcing mad lawyer and an ex airforce helicopter pilot.

The fallout from the DSR is almost coming across now as, "it's not a fast jet so it doesn't matter", we just bought some new fast jets, so it's all good".
But Volk neither you or anyone else can be surprised at whats unfolding. The DSR was always a document to justify decreasing capability by a Government that does not believe the defence of Australia is of much importance. So we have effectively handed over our defence sovereignty to the US, as we simply refuse to provide the funds. Is it shameful? Of course, but hardly surprising that has been Australia's modus operandi for years.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
But Volk neither you or anyone else can be surprised at whats unfolding. The DSR was always a document to justify decreasing capability by a Government that does not believe the defence of Australia is of much importance. So we have effectively handed over our defence sovereignty to the US, as we simply refuse to provide the funds. Is it shameful? Of course, but hardly surprising that has been Australia's modus operandi for years.
The MO was imported from Canada. Governments here have been letting the US pick up most defence costs for decades.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
But Volk neither you or anyone else can be surprised at whats unfolding. The DSR was always a document to justify decreasing capability by a Government that does not believe the defence of Australia is of much importance. So we have effectively handed over our defence sovereignty to the US, as we simply refuse to provide the funds. Is it shameful? Of course, but hardly surprising that has been Australia's modus operandi for years.
Without seeing the results of the surface force review you have no evidence for this claim.

For all you know there is a credible fully funded plan to get us to 9 Hunters 9 DDGs and 9 Type 31s by 2040. I’m not saying that will happen, but I am saying that no one on here does except anyone who is very high up in the ADF or in Defence, who is certainly not talking about it.

It has been clear to me that if there was anywhere where the Government was going to direct a material increase in Defence spending - which they are still saying is one of their priorities - over and above the previous gov’s plans then it was going to be the surface fleet.

If the surface force review comes out and it’s a fizzer then you’ll have a valid argument. But until then cool your jets with the unsubstantiated claims.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Without seeing the results of the surface force review you have no evidence for this claim.

For all you know there is a credible fully funded plan to get us to 9 Hunters 9 DDGs and 9 Type 31s by 2040. I’m not saying that will happen, but I am saying that no one on here does except anyone who is very high up in the ADF or in Defence, who is certainly not talking about it.

It has been clear to me that if there was anywhere where the Government was going to direct a material increase in Defence spending - which they are still saying is one of their priorities - over and above the previous gov’s plans then it was going to be the surface fleet.

If the surface force review comes out and it’s a fizzer then you’ll have a valid argument. But until then cool your jets with the unsubstantiated claims.
Looking very much forward to that now delayed until next years review.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
If the surface force review comes out and it’s a fizzer then you’ll have a valid argument. But until then cool your jets with the unsubstantiated claims.
The main guidance I take from the DSR is “enhanced, all domain, maritime capabilities for sea denial operations and localised sea control”

The RN had 2 carriers & 23 escorts to establish sea control around the Falklands.

Personally I feel that if this is serious a fleet of something like 8 Hunter, 8 Arrowhead & 8 DDG(X)/Type 83 would likely be required in the absence of a carrier capability. And that in the very best case might allow the surging of 12-16 escorts.

If only need sea denial then it is a different discussion.

Regards,

Massive
 

knightrider4

Active Member
The main guidance I take from the DSR is “enhanced, all domain, maritime capabilities for sea denial operations and localised sea control”

The RN had 2 carriers & 23 escorts to establish sea control around the Falklands.

Personally I feel that if this is serious a fleet of something like 8 Hunter, 8 Arrowhead & 8 DDG(X)/Type 83 would likely be required in the absence of a carrier capability. And that in the very best case might allow the surging of 12-16 escorts.

If only need sea denial then it is a different discussion.

Regards,

Massive
8 Hunter, 8 Arrowhead and 8DDG(X)/Type 83. In the words of Yes Prime Minister, that is very courageous of you to say the least. I for one sincerely hope your dreams come to fruition.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
8 Hunter, 8 Arrowhead and 8DDG(X)/Type 83. In the words of Yes Prime Minister, that is very courageous of you to say the least. I for one sincerely hope your dreams come to fruition.
Question really is, is the GOD serious about localised sea control?

If the GOD is serious, and plan to achieve this with no carriers and less than 12 escorts, then perhaps it is the GOD that is being courageous.

Though of course not a single member of the GOD, now or future, will be in the ships…

Regards,

Massive
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Northern Australia is important. Two things spring to mind though - why put my logistics nodes on the front lines? And if I can't retain enough for the ADF because I'm scattered - what am I going to defend the north with?
If it came to it, you could abandon Darwin and everything between Darwin and just north of Adelaide, and just engage what sad sorry remnants of the invader‘s force are still moving when they get there.

Just a random thought.

Regards,

Massive
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
T
If it came to it, you could abandon Darwin and everything between Darwin and just north of Adelaide, and just engage what sad sorry remnants of the invader‘s force are still moving when they get there.

Just a random thought.

Regards,

Massive
The Brisbane line?

Better idea, just equip the ADF with what it needs, new, functioning gear is a surprisingly good recruiting and retention tool, and defend the who continent.

It would require a lot more commonsense from our political and bureaucratic classes though.
 
8 Hunter, 8 Arrowhead and 8DDG(X)/Type 83. In the words of Yes Prime Minister, that is very courageous of you to say the least. I for one sincerely hope your dreams come to fruition.
The challenge being that even if something along these lines was announced as a recommendation of the current review, and yes we’d all here breathe huge sighs of relief that someone has finally seen the obvious, that even at a high tempo but sustainable lay down drumbeat of one per 18 months, to complete one full build cycle such a plan would have to survive 10-15 elections, many changes of govt, many white papers, strategic reviews, strategic can kicking, and budgets. Current threats will have run their course, plus likely the next wave after. To crash build faster just because we may be able to with digital shipyards and two potential locations, would just risk setting up our kids and grandkids for the next naval shipbuilding valley of death.

Because we could doesn’t mean we should.

Let’s hope the surface review has a plan like you‘ve suggested, but let’s also dream that future govts can then hold the line and put what’s right above what’s popular.

UPDATE - Sorry, just realised this is the Army thread that’s taken a tangent.
 
Last edited:

Massive

Well-Known Member
Let’s hope the surface review has a plan like you‘ve suggested, but let’s also dream that future govts can then hold the line and put what’s right above what’s popular.

UPDATE - Sorry, just realised this is the Army thread that’s taken a tangent.
My point was more be clear on what you want to achieve and then make a plan to achieve it.

There is a massive disconnect between stated goal and resourcing to meet the goal for both the RAN and Army.

Regards,

Massive
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The main guidance I take from the DSR is “enhanced, all domain, maritime capabilities for sea denial operations and localised sea control”

The RN had 2 carriers & 23 escorts to establish sea control around the Falklands.

Personally I feel that if this is serious a fleet of something like 8 Hunter, 8 Arrowhead & 8 DDG(X)/Type 83 would likely be required in the absence of a carrier capability. And that in the very best case might allow the surging of 12-16 escorts.

If only need sea denial then it is a different discussion.

Regards,

Massive
What I think we will see however, is 6 to 8 nuke subs, about a total of 6 -8 hunters , 3 Hobart's, and autonomous mine layers and Armidales with missiles.
Army will be a small rapid expiditary force, backed up by a reserve, a literol force, and a rocket force of himars and SAMs with a week or two of ammo.
Airforce will likely have a good supply of munitions, as will Navy.
I really don't see our surface fleet being increased as far as big combatants go. If anything, I see it shrinking at the AUKUS subs expense. 3 Hobart's and probably 6 Hunters augmented by Armidale, mine layers and possibly some corvettes.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
What I think we will see however, is 6 to 8 nuke subs, about a total of 6 -8 hunters , 3 Hobart's, and autonomous mine layers and Armidales with missiles.
Army will be a small rapid expiditary force, backed up by a reserve, a literol force, and a rocket force of himars and SAMs with a week or two of ammo.
Airforce will likely have a good supply of munitions, as will Navy.
I really don't see our surface fleet being increased as far as big combatants go. If anything, I see it shrinking at the AUKUS subs expense. 3 Hobart's and probably 6 Hunters augmented by Armidale, mine layers and possibly some corvettes.
No problem. To be clear though, does not even come close to the force structure and capability requirements laid out very clearly in the DSR.

The GOD needs to be clear as to what it want.

That’s all.

Massive
 
Top