Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

5 RAR is already in Darwin, have been since the 90s. 7 RAR was relocated from Darwin to SA later. 5/7 RAR will still be 1 bn with the same posted strength as 5 or 7 RAR. It won't be a bigger unit. When the aviation assets are gone, it will be a smaller footprint. Unless Navy have have a larger presence .

Sorry got them the wrong way round, I knew 5/7 had de-linked and one had gone to Adelaide. But where the Army footprint in Darwin is going to change is the Littoral Lift Group. Don't know if there is any Water Tpt currently in Darwin, but according to the plan released today, there will be 3 Littoral Lift Groups, one in Townsville, one in Darwin and one in Brisbane so we are looking at 0-3 LSTs in the 1500-2000t range, 3-5 LCMs in the 40-45m range, in each city. There is also the LMV-P project upcoming for a littoral attack craft in the 15m class but at this stage, no announcement where they will be based.

 

[buffy9]

I gather there is not a great deal of increase in Army's over all personal numbers.
Just a prioritisation of the type of capabilities desired going forward.

A lot to like and many levels.
The localised rationale for support of high tech platforms makes sense.
The littoral stuff is interesting and has appeal.
Our three big amphibious ships on the East Coast can sail north along the coast and pick up from Brisbane or Townsville the appropriate force depending on the contingency. Makes sense.

Hopefully another infantry battalion emerges down the track. My pick.

Special forces not sure if any change.

Reserves not sure how there placed.

Will see how it evolves.

Cheers S

As much as there is to like there are also issues.

3BDE will fulfill the role of an armoured brigade as recommended by the DSR. It is a relatively small but high-end formation - if it is deemed necessary that a force for close combat is needed, we have a contribution we can make - one which is in regional terms very capable. The logistical issue of Townsville over Brisbane or Adelaide is one issue, though I'm not personally fazed - I'm a fan of concentrating resources so that forces can integrate and train together, provided they are not vulnerable to any kind of strike - which may just be a case of not storing all the vehicles in one specific spot.

1BDE is interesting, I suspect the only way it is going to work is if it adopts what the USMC are doing in force and with gusto. Getting 1BDE and 10BDE to talk to each is going to be crucial - whatever littoral lift emerges and which is integrated with 5/7RAR is going to have to be familiar with supporting HIMARS, NASAMS and what appears to be TUAS. While 10BDE has excellent access to ranges for technical training, a good sustainment hub and could be interoperable with RAAF's ISR hub, I worry they are simply not going to train with 1BDE which is instead going to drift towards doing its own thing. M777 though, when space is at a premium and Chinooks are elsewhere...

7BDE there isn't much to say, beyond that they may need more Bushmasters if all the buckets are retired. They should be well supported, they can readily be supported by amphibious assets (assuming they are familiar and integrated with them) and they appear to be a solution to HADR and STABOPS which can pop up every now and again. Possibly taking up the mantle 3BDE has typically held.

The littoral lift groups are new in all three locations - though we know little about the scope of them beyond Brisbane is now included as a location. The earlier AOF indicated that Darwin would likely be a COE for littoral manoeuvre, with Townsville as a secondary location and alternative COE. Now Brisbane has been included, with all three locations to have (or have infrastructure for) LMV-H, as opposed to just Darwin. I like it, though it is a major effort - from keeping everyone in Army familiar with operating at sea and around water, to crewing these vessels and operating them in a hostile environment.

I really suspect it is Navy that will determine how useful Army is going into the future. They are going to need to play a big role on our LMV, and the amphibious and sealift support they provide is key to actually getting into the region and doing our job. That said, larger ships need protection, and "limited sea control" leaves room for anxiety. In the absence of the fleet, we will necessarily have to rely on smaller, more dispersed platforms - being LMV and airland lift.

I'm not certain another infantry battalion is what we need tbh, at least with where our priorities are. If I had to increase infantry, I'd improve it at the small-unit level - an additional section member, small boat platoons, etc...

 

[Redlands18]

As much as there is to like there are also issues.

3BDE will fulfill the role of an armoured brigade as recommended by the DSR. It is a relatively small but high-end formation - if it is deemed necessary that a force for close combat is needed, we have a contribution we can make - one which is in regional terms very capable. The logistical issue of Townsville over Brisbane or Adelaide is one issue, though I'm not personally fazed - I'm a fan of concentrating resources so that forces can integrate and train together, provided they are not vulnerable to any kind of strike - which may just be a case of not storing all the vehicles in one specific spot.

1BDE is interesting, I suspect the only way it is going to work is if it adopts what the USMC are doing in force and with gusto. Getting 1BDE and 10BDE to talk to each is going to be crucial - whatever littoral lift emerges and which is integrated with 5/7RAR is going to have to be familiar with supporting HIMARS, NASAMS and what appears to be TUAS. While 10BDE has excellent access to ranges for technical training, a good sustainment hub and could be interoperable with RAAF's ISR hub, I worry they are simply not going to train with 1BDE which is instead going to drift towards doing its own thing. M777 though, when space is at a premium and Chinooks are elsewhere...

7BDE there isn't much to say, beyond that they may need more Bushmasters if all the buckets are retired. They should be well supported, they can readily be supported by amphibious assets (assuming they are familiar and integrated with them) and they appear to be a solution to HADR and STABOPS which can pop up every now and again. Possibly taking up the mantle 3BDE has typically held.

The littoral lift groups are new in all three locations - though we know little about the scope of them beyond Brisbane is now included as a location. The earlier AOF indicated that Darwin would likely be a COE for littoral manoeuvre, with Townsville as a secondary location and alternative COE. Now Brisbane has been included, with all three locations to have (or have infrastructure for) LMV-H, as opposed to just Darwin. I like it, though it is a major effort - from keeping everyone in Army familiar with operating at sea and around water, to crewing these vessels and operating them in a hostile environment.

I really suspect it is Navy that will determine how useful Army is going into the future. They are going to need to play a big role on our LMV, and the amphibious and sealift support they provide is key to actually getting into the region and doing our job. That said, larger ships need protection, and "limited sea control" leaves room for anxiety. In the absence of the fleet, we will necessarily have to rely on smaller, more dispersed platforms - being LMV and airland lift.

I'm not certain another infantry battalion is what we need tbh, at least with where our priorities are. If I had to increase infantry, I'd improve it at the small-unit level - an additional section member, small boat platoons, etc...

I suspect Brisbane will become the Trg Hub for the Littoral capability, I would doubt they would have all LMV-H full time in all three sites due to maintenance requirements, maybe Brisbane and Darwin. I would not write off LMV-H going to the RAN but with mixed crews.

 

[buffy9]

There seems to be a lack of clarity so far on RAAC units. Talk of tanks and IFVs being concentrated in 3rd Brigade, which will be tagged "armoured", but also mention of 1st Armoured Regiment being "re-roled as an innovation and experimentation unit to deliver and integrate these emerging technologies but will remain at its current location in the South Australian capital, close to the Cultana and Woomera training ranges".

So what really happens with our tanks, IFVs and Boxers? We have/are getting enough for three squadrons of the former, a full battalion using the second, and six squadrons of the latter. Anyone know, or care to offer thoughts?

Based on the infographic provided for the restructure, I suspect Townsville will consist of three triangular units (Abrams, Boxer, AS21) and 7BDE will receive a triangular unit. But this is more speculation based on the graphic. They haven't announced any new unit, so perhaps 2CAV will become an extra large ACR?

1ARMD is new. Probably looking at leveraging or supporting AUKUS' second pillar, supporting unmanned developments (unmanned AS4 in particular) and making use of Cultana and other training facilities in the state.

 

[Bob53]

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.

I suspect he is right…...but your right too. Everyone’s a winner today!

 

[Bob53]

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

Drop the bridge at Adelaide river on the way out. By the time they get across that and through Katherine, Tennant and Alice they will be lucky to have any wheels left.

 

[buffy9]

I suspect Brisbane will become the Trg Hub for the Littoral capability, I would doubt they would have all LMV-H full time in all three sites due to maintenance requirements, maybe Brisbane and Darwin. I would not write off LMV-H going to the RAN but with mixed crews.

It would make sense, it is in close proximity to Shoalwater and the sustainment would be easier, though for whatever intent the vessels were originally postured for Darwin and/or Townsville. With less range, speed and seakeeping, having them able to "dash" into the region would be beneficial. Supporting 10BDE out of Darwin is probably going to mean an at least routine presence as well.

I would prefer RAN handle the vessels, they have the tradition, training and experience - mixed crews may be necessary though to keep the focus on littoral manoeuvre and Army objectives in mind.

 

[Bob53]

I had gone back to lurking for a while but I can't help but get in on the changes to Army.

A few points I might throw in:

1) 3BDE is noted as retaining its amphibious capability, as distinct from littoral. The role of 2RAR in supporting the ARE/ARU may not change as a result, assuming the LHD at least remain in service. 2RAR could move to support the littoral lift groups (LLGs, forgive the acronyms) via detachments, or the groups themselves could field their own pre-landing elements. Either way, if they are intended to operate independently and dispersed they are going to need a way to operate safely across the Coral Triangle.

2) The LMV-H are noted as existing in each of the combat brigades from 2024. While this may be purely speculation, as the infographic may just be indicating planning, it could indicate a faster timelime for LMV-H over something else, or some interim decision for training such as leased craft, if they are available (like 1BDE is doing at the moment, ref. 1:33 mark).

3) There is no mention of AS4 post-2024. Currently there are three battalions of AS4, with one (3RAR) to transition to AS21 and another disappearing from ORBAT (7RAR). How 6RAR transitions will be interesting, presuming there is no surplus of Bushmasters available. Further, only 9BDE is noted as fielding G-Wagon post-2024 - though this may be looking too far into it.

4) This still appears to be a planned expansion of the Army, regardless of 7RAR being slashed. Water transport will need to grow tremendously (regardless of mixed crewing with RAN), RAA is expanding and will need to retain old training pipelines also, and 5/7RAR and 2RAR may need to grow on an individual basis in order to enable littoral lift groups. Close combat, as per DSR, is on the backburner - though I would stress my desire to not retain old or inadequate systems.

5) A lot of work to concentrate effort it would seem (minus littoral lift). All tanks moving to Townsville, 10BDE being fires, while 16BDE helicopter fleets are being concentrated so contractors can better support. Brigades are returning to being specialised and, as per COA in previous address, are largely returning to the command of 1DIV.

Hopefully this one sticks and there isn't another chop and change. While I can see the appeal of having Army closer to population centres, especially when recruiting is hard, I can also see the advantages of being aclimated to the tropics and being positioned towards our interests. At least a lot of estate has already been set up in these areas, though not all of it.

Hopefully we can keep up a good tempo, considering current issues around recruiting/retention, restructuring, and possibly impending DACC tasks. Probably gonna return to lurking, but had to jump in with my 2cents considering it is probably the biggest news thats gonna happen to the green for a while.

All other things aside, Adelaide makes better sense logistically for the heavy armour Abrams, IFV etc. It’s half way to everywhere with decent rail links north, east and west. Townsville on the other hand is all the way from everywhere. Moving heavy things from Townsville to Darwin….well could truck it from Mt Isa. To WA its a long ride.

 

[buffy9]

All other things aside, Adelaide makes better sense logistically for the heavy armour Abrams, IFV etc. It’s half way to everywhere with decent rail links north, east and west. Townsville on the other hand is all the way from everywhere. Moving heavy things from Townsville to Darwin….well could truck it from Mt Isa. To WA its a long ride.

Was definitely my thinking, though it seems like several factors just made it untenable. While it provides year-round training opportunity* and is close to a population hub, the DSR recommended assets be pushed north overall, while direct access to the West Pacific may also be a key factor. Hard to say for sure at the moment.

In terms of WA I don't think there is huge demand to get the armoured brigade over there. Darwin or Townsville itself may be sufficient (Darwin for certain if trying to avoid Torres Strait). But I could be wrong - a rail link between Townsville and Darwin may have even been floated in the classified DSR? We just don't know.

 

[Bob53]

Was definitely my thinking, though it seems like several factors just made it untenable. While it provides year-round training opportunity* and is close to a population hub, the DSR recommended assets be pushed north overall, while direct access to the West Pacific may also be a key factor. Hard to say for sure at the moment.

In terms of WA I don't think there is huge demand to get the armoured brigade over there. Darwin or Townsville itself may be sufficient (Darwin for certain if trying to avoid Torres Strait). But I could be wrong - a rail link between Townsville and Darwin may have even been floated in the classified DSR? We just don't know.

Heavy rail currently runs from Townsville to Mt Isa. It’s about 550k as the crow flys to Tenant Creek where it could pick up the North South rail. most recent comparison I can think of is about 15 Years ago Fortescue Group spent $2.5 billion for similar distance in probably comparable terrain in terms of geo difficulty. However where FMG built there is a significant heavy rail network with supporting industry and skills in region. Nothing like that scale in Mt Isa. Probably double that $$$ now and double it again if it’s being managed by the government.

Cheaper to fly or spend money upgrading the road.

 

[Stampede]

Based on the infographic provided for the restructure, I suspect Townsville will consist of three triangular units (Abrams, Boxer, AS21) and 7BDE will receive a triangular unit. But this is more speculation based on the graphic. They haven't announced any new unit, so perhaps 2CAV will become an extra large ACR?

1ARMD is new. Probably looking at leveraging or supporting AUKUS' second pillar, supporting unmanned developments (unmanned AS4 in particular) and making use of Cultana and other training facilities in the state.

For the 3rd Brigade in Townsville what is suggested for its composition.
Three regiments, each of three sqns. Comprising, one MBT , one AS21 IFV and one Boxer regiment.

Or three identical regiments, each comprising one SQN of MBT, IFV and Cav.

Thoughts

Thanks S

 

[Aardvark144]

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.

Given the Government has stated that the first opportunity for an increase in Defence spending will only occur beyond forward estimates, then I would not be banking on any Christmas presents from the Surface Fleet Review.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Based on the infographic provided for the restructure, I suspect Townsville will consist of three triangular units (Abrams, Boxer, AS21) and 7BDE will receive a triangular unit. But this is more speculation based on the graphic. They haven't announced any new unit, so perhaps 2CAV will become an extra large ACR?

1ARMD is new. Probably looking at leveraging or supporting AUKUS' second pillar, supporting unmanned developments (unmanned AS4 in particular) and making use of Cultana and other training facilities in the state.

It's a shockingly bad graphic in terms of detail. The big concern for me - absent that detail at this stage - is the lack of RAAC regiments with 1st Armoured staying in Adelaide as some kind of test unit (read: unlikely to be deployable), and what this means.

So we have three tank and six cavalry squadrons, but only two regiments - one each in 3rd and 7th brigades. Is 2nd Cavalry going to end up with 1st Armoured's tank and cavalry squadrons? Unlikely to get all of them. Maybe one of the latter goes to 2nd/14th Light Horse, which will lose its tanks.

If 2nd Cavalry is left with three tank and three cavalry squadrons then this demands another RAAC regiment HQ and supporting sub-units, but no mention of that whatsoever. You can see where this is going.

We can presume that 3RAR will get the Redback, and that 2nd Cavalry will have two - if not three - Boxer squadrons, but what about the tanks? They're all going to Townsville, but who is going to operate them and in what numbers? Could we see fewer tanks in service?

I recall a suggestion of Raven's from some time ago that we could see integrated armoured battalions with, I think, a tank squadron and two armoured infantry companies, plus the usual supporting sub-units. Maybe that's the answer? With the two "spare" rifle companies going to 2RAR?

Could we end up with, in effect, two armoured (Abrams and Boxers), two cavalry (Boxer), two motorised (Bushmaster/Hawkei-borne), and two amphibious battlegroups - an army of twos?

 

[Morgo]

Given the Government has stated that the first opportunity for an increase in Defence spending will only occur beyond forward estimates, then I would not be banking on any Christmas presents from the Surface Fleet Review.

Genuine question - could you provide a link please? I’d be interested in exactly what was said by who and in what context.

 

[spoz]

It would make sense, it is in close proximity to Shoalwater and the sustainment would be easier, though for whatever intent the vessels were originally postured for Darwin and/or Townsville. With less range, speed and seakeeping, having them able to "dash" into the region would be beneficial. Supporting 10BDE out of Darwin is probably going to mean an at least routine presence as well.

I would prefer RAN handle the vessels, they have the tradition, training and experience - mixed crews may be necessary though to keep the focus on littoral manoeuvre and Army objectives in mind.

Me too. We had enough conflicting movements the last time Army had it own sea going capability; that’s why it was turned over to Navy. What it’s tasking is does not depend on which Service crews it; the tasking of the LCHs was always Army’s; the execution. Navy’s.

 

[OldTex]

I suspect Brisbane will become the Trg Hub for the Littoral capability, I would doubt they would have all LMV-H full time in all three sites due to maintenance requirements, maybe Brisbane and Darwin. I would not write off LMV-H going to the RAN but with mixed crews.

This new structure will probably only last 10 years, 3 complete posting cycles or 2 elections before it is abandoned as 'not fit for the current threat environment'. At the end of it there might be a hand full of LMV-M and maybe some LMV-P but it is unlikely that the LMV-H will ever get on the ORBAT. There is still all of the infrastructure required for the new plan to be funded and provided, plus all of the recruitment, training and sustainment to be arranged as well as the actual procurement of the platforms.
In the end if there is a fight then Australia will have to make do with whatever it has at the time. God help us all.

 

[Aardvark144]

Genuine question - could you provide a link please? I’d be interested in exactly what was said by who and in what context.

May 9 2023 AFR -

Submarine bill swells as defence spending shoots past $50b

Despite a worsening strategic outlook, there is no major growth defence spending, which will closely track the 2pc of GDP benchmark over the next four years.

www.afr.com

 

[knightrider4]

May 9 2023 AFR -

Submarine bill swells as defence spending shoots past $50b

Despite a worsening strategic outlook, there is no major growth defence spending, which will closely track the 2pc of GDP benchmark over the next four years.

www.afr.com

Yes its going to be awfully difficult to A) Buy warships without funding and B) Increase fleet units without crew. There is only two options that can logically happen. 1. There is no change to the RAN surface fleet and 2. There is a reduction in MFU and smaller warships ie: corvettes to replace those. Now with Marles publicly stating that the worlds navies are moving to more smaller warships, which we know to be total BS I'll let you all come to your own conclusions. Hell I'll drop in a 3rd option, a vague aspirational statement to the effect that when funding is available we will add x amount of vessels and types so far into the future we will all probably be deceased before any steel is cut.

 

[Maranoa]

Expect the worst, has everybody forgotten Army's concept of creating a staged training equipment reserve at its training areas and fly in forces in the same manner as the US Army does and Singapore currently practices at Rockhampton.

 

[Milne Bay]

The Australian Defence Force's MRH-90 Taipan helicopters, which were involved in a fatal military training exercise in the Whitsundays, have been retired early. They will not fly again according to this report.
Full story here:

Australian Defence Force MRH-90 Taipan helicopters involved in fatal crash retired early

The Australian Defence Force's MRH-90 Taipan helicopter fleet — one of which was involved in a fatal military training exercise in the Whitsundays — has been retired early.

www.abc.net.au