Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bluey 006]

A landing force is not just going to appear with no warning. Transit time from anywhere except Indonesia and PNG to Australia is measured in weeks, not hours, and it would not take anywhere near that time to move the assets forward. Certainly, an air landed force could do it more rapidly, but does anyone honestly think the Australian mainland is likely to be invaded? And without any serious deterioration in our relations with the potential invader to give warning?

No, we don't think the Australian mainland is likely to be invaded. As you say not without warning via a massive amphibious assault anyway. The co-location in SE Queensland is more a reference to being located in close proximity to our Air Mobility Group, specifically the C-17s to enable rapid deployment, to potential areas of operations - be that in Australia, in the archipelago to our north or elsewhere in the world.

This raises another interesting point, where do we expect to deploy these must-have HIMARS? In what scenarios?
Not disputing their utility, absolutely an important piece of kit. Rather the priority they were given.

LBASM sure, and LRHW, absolutely.

 

[old faithful]

I agree, though would hasten to add there has been much argument on this forum that we need more armour. I'm comfortable with the equivalent of a regiment of tanks and two of cavalry, but not with fewer than that.

I don't think - from what I've read - that the posted strength of 2RAR is about what the Choules can carry for longer distances. The battalion's mission is to provide joint pre landing forces, which are basically - from what I recall - half a recon/sniper platoon, half a small boats platoon, and two rifle platoons. The battalion can field two of these to rotate them through readiness cycles. It seems to me to be a half-measure. I found this old article interesting. (Edit, sorry didn't link that properly - here it is: https://cove.army.gov.au/article/force-sea-australias-amphibious-capability-update)

I absolutely agree an army of our size should be able to field more combat forces than we do. The numbers don't make sense to me. But nor does the fact we have something like 90-odd one-star officers and above.

I agree too about special forces and their use. Only thing I'd add is that it does seem to have been a trend in other nations too to expand special forces. It's questionable if we would be better served having an extra infantry battalion instead of 2nd Commando Regiment but have it para qualified? That seems to be the big advantage of 2nd Commando.

2 CDO is a very different organisation compared to an INF bn or a para bn.
It is a proper SF unit, and as such does not train in traditional infantry tactics. By that, I doubt very much if 2 Cdo ever conduct defensive exercises on a large scale, it's not their job. Could they, of course.
I also doubt that 2 Cdo train in the para role as an inf para bn would.
Would 2 Cdo conduct a bn group size drop? That's with All atts and dets? Again I doubt it.
Most soldiers, and I mean most, have little clue as to what goes into the planning of a large scale parachute deployment. It's not just strap on a rig, load the plane, drop and get on with it.

 

[Bob53]

Yes, you are quite right access to Woomera, Cultana and Port Wakefield is likely the reason Adelaide was chosen, and that is fair and reasonable, however, we were told a key reason for the review was the need to consider ‘whether Australian defence units, assets and facilities are prepared for the military to take action in a timely way amid a deteriorating strategic situation’.

I wonder if permanently basing our "long-range strike" capabilities (that were given priority over everything else in DSR) and our air defence as far as possible away from where they are most needed in a time of combat is the best decision in the long term?

Surely, one of the key justifications for acquiring HIMARS was its ability to deliver devastating precision strikes on any landing force in a timely manner, before it gains a foothold or has time to disperse. Hours can make a difference.

How do these units train as combined arms when equipment is spread north to south?

 

[Bob53]

A landing force is not just going to appear with no warning. Transit time from anywhere except Indonesia and PNG to Australia is measured in weeks, not hours, and it would not take anywhere near that time to move the assets forward. Certainly an air landed force could do it more rapidly, but does anyone honestly think the Australian mainland is likely to be invaded? And without any serious deterioration in our relations with the potential invader to give warning?

We’ve wargamed that in the past; even the US would struggle to mount a successful invasion through the north, and getting to the South East takes a lot of time and resources. Relatively small scale raids, yes possible although we will still have warning time (provided we recognise the significance of the indicators). Certainly we need to continue to evaluate how we would respond to such events; but in the real world there are many more likely scenarios for the use of the ADF in combat situations. With all due respect to Paul Dibb and Kim Beasley, those are the areas into which we need to put most of our intellectual effort and training.

At least we have a few weeks warning to order some more CRVs and train a few more battalions up…….

 

[John Newman]

An interesting article on The WarZone regarding the M1 tank:

M1 Abrams Ineffective By 2040 In Fight Against China: Army Study

A report from the Army Science Board recommends moving beyond the M1 Abrams to new, smaller tanks and uncrewed vehicles.

www.thedrive.com

Interesting enough article, but what caught my attention was a reference to the Oz army and our M1’s:

"First of all, you know, going all the way back to World War II, tanks have been an important part of the combined arms force out here [in the Pacific]. ... And by the way, Australia just purchased [new] M-1 tanks. And we trained with the Australian Army in Talisman Sabre with their newly arrived M-1s," Army Gen. Charles Flynn, head of U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC), told members of the media just last month. "I believe that you’re gonna have the--need the entire inventory of combined arms ground maneuver in order to fight in restricted terrain. And the tank and armor capabilities in the Pacific is absolutely necessary for conducting operations out here in restricted terrain."


New Australian Army M1’s? Sorry what?

To the best of my knowledge the new M1A2 SEPv3 don’t start arriving until next year, eg, 2024.

Either they’ve snuck in early, or the US Army General, who is head of US Army Pacific is talking through his arse?

I suspect the US Army General is talking through his arse.

Hmmm.....

 

[Stampede]

An interesting article on The WarZone regarding the M1 tank:

M1 Abrams Ineffective By 2040 In Fight Against China: Army Study

A report from the Army Science Board recommends moving beyond the M1 Abrams to new, smaller tanks and uncrewed vehicles.

www.thedrive.com

Interesting enough article, but what caught my attention was a reference to the Oz army and our M1’s:

"First of all, you know, going all the way back to World War II, tanks have been an important part of the combined arms force out here [in the Pacific]. ... And by the way, Australia just purchased [new] M-1 tanks. And we trained with the Australian Army in Talisman Sabre with their newly arrived M-1s," Army Gen. Charles Flynn, head of U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC), told members of the media just last month. "I believe that you’re gonna have the--need the entire inventory of combined arms ground maneuver in order to fight in restricted terrain. And the tank and armor capabilities in the Pacific is absolutely necessary for conducting operations out here in restricted terrain."


New Australian Army M1’s? Sorry what?

To the best of my knowledge the new M1A2 SEPv3 don’t start arriving until next year, eg, 2024.

Either they’ve snuck in early, or the US Army General, who is head of US Army Pacific is talking through his arse?

I suspect the US Army General is talking through his arse.

Hmmm.....

Interesting pickup.

I would of thought a bit of fanfare with the arrival of our new M1A2 SEPv3.
Media Opp and all that stuff
Like yourself I was of the understanding it was next year.

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting pickup.

I would of thought a bit of fanfare with the arrival of our new M1A2 SEPv3.
Media Opp and all that stuff
Like yourself I was of the understanding it was next year.

Cheers S

There was very little about the arrival of the new Blackhawks. There seems to be less pr etc. thesedays

 

[John Newman]

There was very little about the arrival of the new Blackhawks. There seems to be less pr etc. thesedays

Actually there were multiple media reports regarding the delivery of the first two UH-60Ms, one example below:

First Army UH-60M Black Hawks arrive in Australia - Australian Defence Magazine

The Army has taken delivery of the first two new Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, beginning the end of European ascendancy in the Australian Defence Force helicopter fleet | Max Blenkin

www.australiandefence.com.au

You wouldn’t be suggesting we’ve already started taking delivery of new M1A2 SEPv3 tanks without any sort of announcement from Government or the media?

 

[Bluey 006]

How do these units train as combined arms when equipment is spread north to south?

Exactly, that's the point. Everything will be split all over under the new changes announced in the posture shift. Armour in Townville, Air defence and long-range fires in Adelaide, motorised in Brisbane, Littoral and light forces in NT etc

 

[Bluey 006]

Not sure if anyone has seen this one

US Army readies new artillery strategy spurred by war in Ukraine [DefenceNews,2023]

Two paragraphs stood out to me,



"Rainey said the time has come for analysis that can inform the artillery strategy based on both “what’s happening in Ukraine” as well as what U.S. Army Pacific needs in terms of conventional fires". A similar conclusion was drawn here link

“the requirement for extended-range fires is absolutely a valid requirement,” Rainey said.

“I think everything we’re seeing in Ukraine [is] about the relevance of precision fires, all the emerging technology, but the big killer on the battlefield is conventional artillery, high-explosive artillery,” he said.

So one must wonder how the DSR conclusion was so vastly different. The Australian strategic context is obviously quite different to what is happening in Ukraine, The ADF is not the US Army Pacific or the US Marines. It is much smaller and things do need to be prioritized. A distributed maritime conflict will be a different war. However, the Australian Army is the sole contributor of land forces as part of the joint equation of national military power, as such it needs the ability to make effective military contributions to defend Australian interests around the entire globe across a range of contingencies. As we have seen this week, security situations can arise out of nowhere.

Is the DSR putting too many eggs in one basket?

 

[Volkodav]

Not sure if anyone has seen this one

US Army readies new artillery strategy spurred by war in Ukraine [DefenceNews,2023]

Two paragraphs stood out to me,



"Rainey said the time has come for analysis that can inform the artillery strategy based on both “what’s happening in Ukraine” as well as what U.S. Army Pacific needs in terms of conventional fires". A similar conclusion was drawn here link

“the requirement for extended-range fires is absolutely a valid requirement,” Rainey said.

“I think everything we’re seeing in Ukraine [is] about the relevance of precision fires, all the emerging technology, but the big killer on the battlefield is conventional artillery, high-explosive artillery,” he said.

So one must wonder how the DSR conclusion was so vastly different. The Australian strategic context is obviously quite different to what is happening in Ukraine, The ADF is not the US Army Pacific or the US Marines. It is much smaller and things do need to be prioritized. A distributed maritime conflict will be a different war. However, the Australian Army is the sole contributor of land forces as part of the joint equation of national military power, as such it needs the ability to make effective military contributions to defend Australian interests around the entire globe across a range of contingencies. As we have seen this week, security situations can arise out of nowhere.

Is the DSR putting too many eggs in one basket?

Remembering 1 Armd Regt is being reroled as an experimental unit, while being colocated with the rocket and missile armed brigade we know we are getting, I wouldn't be making too many assumptions on the DSR.

There is no model to follow, no existing structure or equipment to order. Looking at it like that, this makes sense.

Three brigades based on what we have or are already getting, and one trailing new structures and concepts based on what we are seeing overseas.

 

[old faithful]

No reason that a regular force can't trial new equipment and strategies whist maintaining their line capabilities. SARP was an example, it required new ways for infantry to train.

 

[Stampede]

Remembering 1 Armd Regt is being reroled as an experimental unit, while being colocated with the rocket and missile armed brigade we know we are getting, I wouldn't be making too many assumptions on the DSR.

There is no model to follow, no existing structure or equipment to order. Looking at it like that, this makes sense.

Three brigades based on what we have or are already getting, and one trailing new structures and concepts based on what we are seeing overseas.

What's in a name.

Assuming all of our armour is located with the 3rd Brigade in Townsville

I would have preferred 1st Armd Regt
to actually have our tanks.

It's their history and it's in their name..

Another unit could be the experimental unit.

Just a thought

Cheers S

PS probably a bit difficult just to swap unit colours .......SA to FNQLD

 

[koala]

Hi All, I had a great conversation with two girls today wearing army fatigues while waiting for the bus.

They were from the Knox college and are in the army cadets. I was also in army cadets as a kid and had a chance to fire an SLR.

The girls mentioned today have not had a chance to fire a rifle.

Just adding to a conversation about army cadets and how this is going?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Hi All, I had a great conversation with two girls today wearing army fatigues while waiting for the bus.

They were from the Knox college and are in the army cadets. I was also in army cadets as a kid and had a chance to fire an SLR.

The girls mentioned today have not had a chance to fire a rifle.

Just adding to a conversation about army cadets and how this is going?

I sincerely hope you did not yell at them throughout your conversation.
That would be rather rude.

 

[Bob53]

Australian production on Boxer Ammo begins! It works out at about 300 rounds per CRV ( if they had all been delivered) but it’s a start

NIOA begins Boxer ammunition production - APDR

NIOA has begun ammunition production for the Army’s next-generation armoured Boxer vehicle, marking a significant milestone for munitions manufacturing in Australia.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Australian production on Boxer Ammo begins! It works out at about 300 rounds per CRV ( if they had all been delivered) but it’s a start

NIOA begins Boxer ammunition production - APDR

NIOA has begun ammunition production for the Army’s next-generation armoured Boxer vehicle, marking a significant milestone for munitions manufacturing in Australia.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

It's training ammunition, which at this point is probably the most needed ammo

 

[Armchair]

Long time lurker, first time poster. I feel I have learned a lot from many threads on this site, thanks all!
I was moved to post by the discussions of the Defence Strategic Review and the army posture.

I don’t agree with some of the negative commentary here (will come back to that when I have time). My (non-expert) view is the army has designed three useful combat brigades and a fires brigade (located in the right places in view of available bases) given the hand dealt to them by govt and the tasks set for them (deter aggression by demonstrating a capacity to project force off shore in the region).

The problem I see is that there is that if the single mechanised (3rd) brigade were to be committed somewhere there is no capacity to relieve or reinforce it (there aren’t any tanks, ifvs, or spgs anywhere else in the army to create a mechanised battle group) or to send a mechanised battle group to deal with any other contingency.

I guess the real solution would be to hope that, if deployed, the 3rd Brigade could be relieved by an allied armoured brigade but to be a credible deterrent it seems to me that either 7th Brigade (and/or army reserve) needs a minimal mechanised capability (even having some apc modules for Boxers could help) or the units in 3rd Brigade need more companies and squadrons than they would deploy (I guess that is likely to be true given limited sea lift and escort capacity).

To be clear I am not arguing to revisit the equipment numbers (other than Boxer modules) or the priorities re fires and littoral lift.

 

[ADMk2]

Insitu Pacific, Innovaero to develop uncrewed long-range strike concept

Interesting development. Unfortunately ADF’s capability development processes should see something like this available in about 2035…

BRISBANE, Oct. 16, 2023 — Insitu Pacific (IPL) and Innovaero will collaborate on an integrated solution for a long-range strike capability using uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), providing a versatile solution in an increasingly complex battlespace.

The work underway will coordinate:
– IPL’s Integrator, which provides intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and
– Innovaero’s One-Way Loitering (OWL) munition which can strike a long-range target after flying directly to it or circling overhead.

“This unified approach would combine uncrewed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and long-range strike capabilities to rapidly deliver direct effects in the engagement zone without the need for crews in larger air assets being put at risk,” said Andrew Duggan, managing director Insitu Pacific.

“The concept is designed to achieve seamless integration with current Australian Defence Force systems, including the Integrator, and offers great potential to become an integral strike asset.”

Together, the companies will develop, test and field the collaborative system using Insitu Pacific’s common ground control station (GCS) and INEXA software to control both UAS and long-range OWLs. Operators would command both assets through the common GCS.

“The versatility of the proposed combined ISR and strike solution provides a significantly shorter ‘sensor to shooter’ loop to engage emerging threats,” said Simon Grosser, Innovaero Group CEO.

“Our collaboration with Insitu Pacific builds on our work with Defence in Australia to develop an Australian loitering munitions capability, and offers an integrated solution for long range UAS target detection and effective engagement.”

Development and testing for the Integrator/OWL system will continue through 2023.

The announcement builds on a Memorandum of Agreement established between Insitu Pacific and Innovaero in July 2021 to strengthen the development of Australian technology for uncrewed aerial systems.

About Insitu Pacific

Located in Brisbane, Australia Insitu Pacific was established in 2009 as a division of Insitu Inc and serves defence customers across the Asia-Pacific region and global commercial customers. We utilise expert in-house knowledge and skills to deliver trusted and proven uncrewed aircraft systems and end-to-end solutions for collecting, processing and managing sensor data. To date, Insitu systems have accumulated more than 1.4 million flight hours. Insitu Pacific is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company.

About Innovaero

Innovaero is an Australian company that delivers innovative sovereign aeronautical design, certification, manufacturing, and sustainment. Innovaero has a track record of delivering world-class outcomes for clients in Australia, the United States and Canada. Located on both the West and East Coast of Australia, Innovaero provides end-to-end sovereign industrial capability including product design, certification, manufacturing, systems integration, and support services that enable customers to see beyond adversaries and respond decisively.

 

[Armchair]

Insitu Pacific, Innovaero to develop uncrewed long-range strike concept

Interesting development. Unfortunately ADF’s capability development processes should see something like this available in about 2035…

BRISBANE, Oct. 16, 2023 — Insitu Pacific (IPL) and Innovaero will collaborate on an integrated solution for a long-range strike capability using uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), providing a versatile solution in an increasingly complex battlespace.

interesting indeed. They do seem to be going quicker on Loyal Wingman.

if I have the right one the loitering munition has a 1.6m wingspan according to

Innovaero develops next-gen loitering munition - Australian Defence Magazine

Perth-based SME Innovaero, partnering with BAE Systems Australia in the development of the Strix unmanned aerial system, is independently developing a next-generation extended-range autonomous loiteri...

www.australiandefence.com.au

so possibly could provide some strike and ISR in support of landings.