Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

That's extremely simplistic thinking. Mass =/= role. You have to consider roles, training, maintenance, losses, a whole bunch of stuff...

For the last discussion about numbers, you really need to go look at doctrine and build from there. Doctrinally, and arguably historically, speaking, the Australian Army requires about 1000 IFVs to do the job. That is, to put a Bde in the field for an extended period (ie, 12 - 18 months+, not a bullshit 6 week Hamel). Coincidently, I've done the numbers for IFV here (1040 please) and tank here (130 please).

Yes, minimal viable capability is the new catch cry. Yes, we can get away without wartime numbers if we have a solid and rehearsed mobilisation plan. I am not suggesting that the order needs to go from 159 to 1040 tomorrow - I know what the budget is like and I'm also away of the other bits of FIC needed. But, you need to grasp what is needed before you can have intelligent discussions about what to cut. The need for Army to do the missions provided is big.



Don't confuse our region with Australia. Straight up, there is no risk of an invasion of the Australian mainland. And even if the Alien Space Bats come and help get a lodgement ashore, it's going to die. Between the terrain, Collins and air, the only thing the Army will need to do is mortuary and PW affairs. Small elements of SF and the like doing raids is different, but that's not an invasion.

To think we won't have to fight elsewhere in the region though - that's wrong. And to think that concentrated armour in our region isn't a thing - Vietnam, India and China would all historically disagree. Plus, in the initial stages of any operation, better to throw overwhelming strength in to undermine enemy morale from day 1. There was no need for ASLAV or M113 in Timor Leste in 1999 - but they helped make a statement. Furthermore, look at what the threats are pushing down to sub-unit and below. Our foes don't just have grenades, machine guns and rifles now - there are heavier weapons, pretty god rockets/missiles - a whole bunch of stuff that makes light infantry more and more irrelevant. Noting how hard armour is to make and train (compared to the rest of ground Army, better to start with high stocks and train up light infantry than the other way around.



Depending where it is? Vietnam, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Singapore. Possibly the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand. Yup, some are our allies. But in the grand scheme of things, a Battlegroup is reasonably easy pickings. It is why our unit of action is a Bde. That BG has no depth, no resilience and, after 14 days, will probably have no logistics.



A US Army ACR is actually roughly equal to one of our Bde.

(from FM 34-35 Chptr 2 Organization)

Note there are three Cav units (each with a SPH Bty, meaning there is a Arty unit in total), there is a attack/recon helicopter unit and there is a logistics unit. In our parlance, that's 1 AR, 2 Cav, 2/14 LHR, 1 Regt, 1 Avn and 1 CSSB. Yes, our Bde has a CER as opposed to an engineer sub-unit, but for all intents and purposes a US Army ACR = an Australian Army Bde.

CAV, even light CAV is excellent for VAP and counter SF. Heavy CAV, especially US style ACR has similar combat power to an armoured brigade, it's great for smashing opposing forces but due to being light on infantry, is not so suitable for seizing or holding ground.

I was avoiding suggesting a US style ACR but I do believe it would be a good fit for the ADF. Able to deploy as a full regiment for a Hail Mary event, or individual squadrons or troops to support smaller deployments.

A US Armoured CAV troop has nine tanks, thirteen CFVs and an HQ element with command, support and mortar vehicles. Such a troop would dramatically increase the combat power of an infantry battalion. Three such troops form a squadron, but additionally, each squadron has a company of tanks.

In the US officers for the ACRs could start as platoon commanders in either tank btns, armoured infantry btns or the CAV platoons within inf or armour btns as well as those who came through the ACR platoons.

The great advantage of CAV, is while it requires an investment in, often, quite expensive equipment, it requires a lot less manpower than infantry units. They have organic mobility, tend to be harder and more resilient than conventional units.

 

[Stampede]

Interesting update in The Australian Defence Magazine re the Austal / Birdon selection for up-to 18 LMV-M.
Now to be known as the LC-M, these craft are BIG.
Think of an Olympic swimming pool four lanes wide.
Bigger than the old LCH.

"Birdon’s General Manager for Defence Joe Smith states they we have a true open ocean capability.
The design selected by the Commonwealth for Land 8710 Phase 1A is the largest of the vessels on offer, with what Smith calls a “true blue water capability”. They will be 50 metres long, have a beam of 10.5 metres and be able to transport a payload of up to 94 tonnes (sufficient to accommodate two Hanwha AS21 Redback infantry fighting vehicles) – a figure in excess of Commonwealth requirements.

Smith says the LC-M design will carry an 80-tonne payload in excess of 2,000 nautical miles at “the top” of Sea State 4 and still hold 20 per cent fuel reserves."

First deliveries before the end of 2026.

This is a very interesting space.

Add the landing craft heavy, LARC replacement and other watercraft to be purchased and we now get a sense of the size and importance of the new Littorial Lift Groups.

What these new Army units look like will be very interesting , as will the capability.

Will these capabilities be just for domestic coastal operation , or as I suspect a tool of government for regional influence.

Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

It could go many ways and what I'm saying is speculative re final numbers being increased.

A few things to consider.

Recent hostilities overseas have reinforced the role and need of IFV's and SPG's.
Not the opposite.

Political rhetoric re defence is that we need to prepare for a region facing greater levels of threat. These modern units fit that need.

Politicians do like a good increase in manufacturing story in their backyard.
We do have a federal election or two within the build timeframe.

Army has operated much larger fleets of APC's in the past compared to the proposed IFV aquistion....... A new capability for sure, but numbers do mater. A precident exists for an increase in armoured vehicle numbers.

The last thought is just one of logic.
Why would we build such a small fleet of IFV's and SPG's locally.
It would be much better value to buy from overseas. Sovereign capability I get , but there's a point when your return on investment makes it not worth the coin.

I wouldn't bet my house on it, but I'd be very surprised if build numbers are not increased.

Remember we were initially only going to build 299 Bushmaster PMV's.
Those numbers certainly grew.


If it's going to happen, an announcement would need to be within a couple if years.

Fingers crossed


Cheers S

You’re spot on. It’s not a sovereign capability if it’s closed. It’s just political posturing.

 

[Todjaeger]

You’re spot on. It’s not a sovereign capability if it’s closed. It’s just political posturing.

From my POV, right now it is just political posturing and will continue to be so unless/until orders for additional units get placed in quantity. Furthermore, such orders would need to start getting placed within the next five years based off the current build and production schedule. It is also distinctly possible that the window to get additional orders in might be even smaller than five years, depending on what the lead times are for long lead items.

Right now, the current expectation is that the first production AS21 Redbacks would be delivered from Hanwha's Geelong facility in approximately three years (early 2027) with production to meet the order for 129 units ending some time in 2028. Based off other announcements and media releases, construction of the Geelong H-ACE (Hanwha Armoured Vehicle Centre of Excellence) facility next to Avalon Airport was to take about 24 months after starting in Q4 of 2022. This suggests to me that construction of the facility should end by the end of this year and that initial production and associated QC & QA testing and proofs could start in 2025.

To me, this does not leave a significant window of opportunity where new/additional/expanded orders could get placed, should gov't and Defence decide more units need to be ordered and the funding needed can be found or allocated.

As others have already demonstrated with some detailed breakdowns of the numbers required to provide capabilities, a number greater than initially planned would really be needed, in order to reach certain capability levels. The number actually contracted though was then cut to about a third of what was originally planned.

Now it is certainly possible that orders for more units could end up getting placed to keep production ticking along so that Army does start to get the planned number of IFV's. However, I would consider this no more than a possibility at present and certainly not something I consider will definitely happen. Had gov't actually been certain that the original numbers would be ordered, gov't could have just gone with the reqs for ~450 units, and likely been able to announce that the Hanwha facility would have work to keep running into ~2034. The fact that what is likely to be a narrow window of opportunity to get orders placed is approaching and that the initially expected order size was slashed leaves me with the feeling that the current order for 129 units might very well be the only order.

 

[Armchair]

A US Armoured CAV troop has nine tanks, thirteen CFVs and an HQ element with command, support and mortar vehicles. Such a troop would dramatically increase the combat power of an infantry battalion. Three such troops form a squadron, but additionally, each squadron has a company of tanks.

But why does it need a combined arms structure for the purpose of force generation?
Can’t such a troop (if the equipment actually exists) be added to a battle group in the Australian doctrine?
Isn’t there some value (as well as some costs) in the Australian regiment and corps structures and traditions?

If the effect of the ACR model you propose were to mean there were heavy forces somewhere other than Townsville (for raising, training and sustaining) then it would have a good effect based on @Takao ‘s earlier arguments but I am not sure the generation of battle groups and combat teams is the broken part.

 

[Volkodav]

But why does it need a combined arms structure for the purpose of force generation?
Can’t such a troop (if the equipment actually exists) be added to a battle group in the Australian doctrine?
Isn’t there some value (as well as some costs) in the Australian regiment and corps structures and traditions?

If the effect of the ACR model you propose were to mean there were heavy forces somewhere other than Townsville (for raising, training and sustaining) then it would have a good effect based on @Takao ‘s earlier arguments but I am not sure the generation of battle groups and combat teams is the broken part.

I am just outlining the US ACR troop/squadron structure to go with the org chart that Takao posted earlier.

I am not saying should but could.

The thing is, it is highly unlikely the ADF will ever deploy an armoured battle group, let alone an armoured brigade. Armour will always be part of combined arms, always. Even if we become involved in a conventional land war somewhere, it will have to be fought with units and formations that don't currently exist.

 

[Stampede]

From my POV, right now it is just political posturing and will continue to be so unless/until orders for additional units get placed in quantity. Furthermore, such orders would need to start getting placed within the next five years based off the current build and production schedule. It is also distinctly possible that the window to get additional orders in might be even smaller than five years, depending on what the lead times are for long lead items.

Right now, the current expectation is that the first production AS21 Redbacks would be delivered from Hanwha's Geelong facility in approximately three years (early 2027) with production to meet the order for 129 units ending some time in 2028. Based off other announcements and media releases, construction of the Geelong H-ACE (Hanwha Armoured Vehicle Centre of Excellence) facility next to Avalon Airport was to take about 24 months after starting in Q4 of 2022. This suggests to me that construction of the facility should end by the end of this year and that initial production and associated QC & QA testing and proofs could start in 2025.

To me, this does not leave a significant window of opportunity where new/additional/expanded orders could get placed, should gov't and Defence decide more units need to be ordered and the funding needed can be found or allocated.

As others have already demonstrated with some detailed breakdowns of the numbers required to provide capabilities, a number greater than initially planned would really be needed, in order to reach certain capability levels. The number actually contracted though was then cut to about a third of what was originally planned.

Now it is certainly possible that orders for more units could end up getting placed to keep production ticking along so that Army does start to get the planned number of IFV's. However, I would consider this no more than a possibility at present and certainly not something I consider will definitely happen. Had gov't actually been certain that the original numbers would be ordered, gov't could have just gone with the reqs for ~450 units, and likely been able to announce that the Hanwha facility would have work to keep running into ~2034. The fact that what is likely to be a narrow window of opportunity to get orders placed is approaching and that the initially expected order size was slashed leaves me with the feeling that the current order for 129 units might very well be the only order.

Correct in that there is no ink on the page for additional units.
We'll watch this space.

The AS9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer is scheduled to start production late this year.
Cannot find when this build schedule will finish.
My guess is a couple of years with such limited numbers.

Can anyone update the build scgefule


Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Correct in that there is no ink on the page for additional units.
We'll watch this space.

The AS9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer is scheduled to start production late this year.
Cannot find when this build schedule will finish.
My guess is a couple of years with such limited numbers.

Can anyone update the build scgefule


Cheers S

That's build schedule

 

[Todjaeger]

Correct in that there is no ink on the page for additional units.
We'll watch this space.

The AS9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer is scheduled to start production late this year.
Cannot find when this build schedule will finish.
My guess is a couple of years with such limited numbers.

Can anyone update the build scgefule


Cheers S

There was a new media release from Hanwha Aerospace (parent company of Hanwha Defence Australia aka HDA) 7 December 2023 here. In the release, it announced that H-ACE facility in Geelong where the 30 AS9 Huntsman SPH and 15 AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply vehicles will be built for LAND 8116 is due to open in Q3 2024. This is the same facility that is to begin delivering AS21 Redback IFV's for LAND 400 Phase 3 in 2027 and have delivered all 129 ordered by some time in 2028.

Now this is a guess on my part, but I would anticipate if production of the AS9/AS10 were to start some time in the last three months of this year, and with only 45 vehicles to build for the entire order, then the build would most likely be completed by early 2026. This is of course assuming that there are neither major issues encountered, changes in circumstances, or additional units ordered. By finishing the LAND 8116 build by early 2026, this should allow HDA to re-task workforce and/or re-tool the facility to build the AS21 for the Land 400 Phase 3 order, so that initial deliveries can begin in early 2026.

Something to keep in mind is that these numbers ordered are quite small and with a planned build period of likely around 48 months between the two vehicles, we are talking an average build rate of only around three or four vehicles per month, or a little less than one per week. This is better than nothing but at present does not appear to deliver a deployable capability in any useful size and it seems unlikely to become a 'sovereign' defence industrial capability, simply because the production runs for the facility currently only go until some time in 2028.

 

[Stampede]

There was a new media release from Hanwha Aerospace (parent company of Hanwha Defence Australia aka HDA) 7 December 2023 here. In the release, it announced that H-ACE facility in Geelong where the 30 AS9 Huntsman SPH and 15 AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply vehicles will be built for LAND 8116 is due to open in Q3 2024. This is the same facility that is to begin delivering AS21 Redback IFV's for LAND 400 Phase 3 in 2027 and have delivered all 129 ordered by some time in 2028.

Now this is a guess on my part, but I would anticipate if production of the AS9/AS10 were to start some time in the last three months of this year, and with only 45 vehicles to build for the entire order, then the build would most likely be completed by early 2026. This is of course assuming that there are neither major issues encountered, changes in circumstances, or additional units ordered. By finishing the LAND 8116 build by early 2026, this should allow HDA to re-task workforce and/or re-tool the facility to build the AS21 for the Land 400 Phase 3 order, so that initial deliveries can begin in early 2026.

Something to keep in mind is that these numbers ordered are quite small and with a planned build period of likely around 48 months between the two vehicles, we are talking an average build rate of only around three or four vehicles per month, or a little less than one per week. This is better than nothing but at present does not appear to deliver a deployable capability in any useful size and it seems unlikely to become a 'sovereign' defence industrial capability, simply because the production runs for the facility currently only go until some time in 2028.

Thanks and suggest a good calculated guesstimate for both vehicle types.
The short timeframe for completion does support your argument that new orders would need to be forthcoming shortly.

So big building in Avalon in 2029, A defence manufacturing hub or new indoor sporting facility for the local community?

Time with tell


Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

Thanks and suggest a good calculated guesstimate for both vehicle types.
The short timeframe for completion does support your argument that new orders would need to be forthcoming shortly.

So big building in Avalon in 2029, A defence manufacturing hub or new indoor sporting facility for the local community?

Time with tell


Cheers S

Won’t be a sporting facility. If you have ever been to Avalon it’s way out of the way from local residential…like 5-7kms.

 

[Stampede]

Won’t be a sporting facility. If you have ever been to Avalon it’s way out of the way from local residential…like 5-7kms.

Good point.

It's not the most exciting place but for the biannual airshow.

Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

Built, the company constructing the new Hanwha H-ACE facility has a nice video on the website.
Once listed as a $170 million dollar facility is now listed at $143 million, likely due to the fact the facility has shrunk and they just have the one assembly line. The completion date is now July 2024. Go on the Hanwha Australia YouTube page and you can see the progress.

Hanwha Armoured Vehicle Centre of Excellence (H-ACE) - Built

www.built.com.au

 

[Bob53]

i hope this is the correct forum. Can anyone explain why the Taipans are being dismantled and not sent off to the Ukraine? The slow trickle of equipment in many ways has effected the Ukraine ability to counter attack and respond quickly and with enough force. This gifted Russia time to fortify and set massive minefields. This has brought bthe Ukraine closer to exhaustion and defeat.

extract from ABC report.

Ukraine wants Australia's decommissioned Taipan fleet, but helicopters appear destined for scrap yard

Protesters from the Ukrainian community are stepping up pressure on the Albanese government over its decision to dismantle and bury Australia's retired fleet of Taipan helicopters instead of sending them to the war-torn nation.

In September last year, the Australian Army's MRH-90 helicopters were retired 14-months earlier than scheduled, after a crash in Queensland killed four defence personnel during a training exercise two months earlier.

They were initially meant to be withdrawn in 2037, but the troubled European-designed aircraft has had a history of problems, leading to fleet-wide groundings over the years.

Ukraine made an official request for the MRH-90's on December 19, 2023, despite the aircraft's well-documented safety and operational concerns.

"Our assessment of risk is different. We're at war," Anton Bogdanovych, who helped organise a rally of Ukrainian supporters in Sydney on Sunday.

Mr Bogdanovych said "the Australian government for some reason wants us all, the taxpayers, to pay close to $2 billion to dismantle them, to bury it in Australian soil, to pollute the environment instead of helping a friend in need."


The co-chair of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Kateryna Argyrou, said, "the Russian federation has complete air superiority over Ukraine and those 45 Taipan helicopters could end up on the Ukrainian front line, it would go a very long way to help Ukrainians fight for freedom and democracy."

"The Australian government unfortunately hasn't communicated why those helicopters have been decommissioned and why they are being buried into the ground," she added.

Ukrainian Ambassador to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko said he's "hoping that there's still a possibility … because we didn't get any reply yet."

But the disassembly process has already begun, following a disposal process where no countries or other parties showed interest in the whole aircraft.

A Defence spokesperson told the ABC, the department "will dispose of the remaining airframes and systems in an environmentally friendly and cost-effective manner."

"Defence is working with Airbus Australia Pacific and NATO Helicopter Industries to harvest key spares from the MRH-90 fleet for the use of other NH90 operators," they added.

@Bob53 Source please. You have been on here long enough to know the rules.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Milne Bay]

There has been, since day one, a shortage of parts for the MRH-90/NH90 fleet worldwide -
It is possible that the value of the parts - sold as parts - exceeds the value of the whole.
Since the fleet has had to be replaced, government is probably trying to recoup money already spent
MB

 

[Volkodav]

There has been, since day one, a shortage of parts for the MRH-90/NH90 fleet worldwide -
It is possible that the value of the parts - sold as parts - exceeds the value of the whole.
Since the fleet has had to be replaced, government is probably trying to recoup money already spent
MB

Some like to harp on about the perceived incompetence of Army Aviation in regards to operating the MRH. The reality is they have successfully operated Blackhawk, Chinook, Tiger (after a much steeper transition from Kiowa) with nowhere near the issues.

The ADF as a whole also operates Romeo (after decades of successful SH-60B ops) as well as fleets of highly complex aircraft, including niche types we were the only, or the only non US operator of.

No one is happy with the NH 90, every operator has had issues. NZ has an entire non operational airframe to support their tiny fleet. How is this a failing of Army Aviation.

Supply them to Ukraine they will be grounded or destroyed in short order.

 

[CJR]

Supply them to Ukraine they will be grounded or destroyed in short order.

I'd also anticipate as a multi-national project there'd be a lot of approvals necessary to ship 'em to Ukraine. And even with all nations involved on side that'd still likely require months of wrangling to go anywhere. Then transfer, training, etc. etc., I'd be dubious even under ideal conditions the helicopters would reach Ukraine within a year.

That said, if there's any of our older model Blackhawks still in storage...

 

[old faithful]

irrelevant post. Sorry.

 

[Bob53]

Some like to harp on about the perceived incompetence of Army Aviation in regards to operating the MRH. The reality is they have successfully operated Blackhawk, Chinook, Tiger (after a much steeper transition from Kiowa) with nowhere near the issues.

The ADF as a whole also operates Romeo (after decades of successful SH-60B ops) as well as fleets of highly complex aircraft, including niche types we were the only, or the only non US operator of.

No one is happy with the NH 90, every operator has had issues. NZ has an entire non operational airframe to support their tiny fleet. How is this a failing of Army Aviation.

Supply them to Ukraine they will be grounded or destroyed in short order.

The press so far on this…sorry not worth digging up the links for this…and yes understand the press at this point may not have the whole story seem to suggest they are going in the ground and will costs us quite a bit do do it. Even if we got $200m for parts it would seem a valuable contribution to Ukraine to just hand the airframes over intact. They could get trained in Europe. Training shouldn’t be used as a reason not to supply them. Same as they. I gut get shot down. That’s a pretty poor excuse for a military aircraft. Hell don’t give out shells because they might be fired. same argument really. we could hand them to other EU operators and let them hand em over. If the Ukraine got 20 odd useable airframes ( after cannibalisation) it would be valuable to them. What’s more of concern is Marles hasn’t come out and explained. Seems to be ducking this.

 

[Todjaeger]

The press so far on this…sorry not worth digging up the links for this…and yes understand the press at this point may not have the whole story seem to suggest they are going in the ground and will costs us quite a bit do do it. Even if we got $200m for parts it would seem a valuable contribution to Ukraine to just hand the airframes over intact. They could get trained in Europe. Training shouldn’t be used as a reason not to supply them. Same as they. I gut get shot down. That’s a pretty poor excuse for a military aircraft. Hell don’t give out shells because they might be fired. same argument really. we could hand them to other EU operators and let them hand em over. If the Ukraine got 20 odd useable airframes ( after cannibalisation) it would be valuable to them. What’s more of concern is Marles hasn’t come out and explained. Seems to be ducking this.

I would suggest really thinking through the idea as a whole.

In a nutshell, you are proposing that Australia should gift Ukraine with troop transport helicopters that Australia has deemed not fit for purpose and has retired them early and is in the process of getting the replacement into service.

As I understand it, and as has been discussed on this thread previously, there seem to have been a few reasons why the ADF (and other armed forces) have decided to retire the MRH90 fleet. Some of those reasons involved their limited availability rates, maintenance demands, high cpfh and limitations/restrictions on operation.

Now also consider both Ukraine's helicopter lift needs are, what their CONOPS is or might be, as well as what their ability is to support and sustain a new type of helicopter in operations.

Lastly, consider what would likely need to be done to them in order to make them 'safe' in an Australian security context, for sale or gifting to the Ukraine, and then also have them delivered in a fit state to be used by Ukraine. I rather doubt that Australia might want to leave some of the more sensitive comms systems and/or EW/air defence countermeasures suites on board, as doing so could compromise existing ADF kit by revealing the capabilities (or lack thereof). Further, I would expect that any helicopters Ukraine would seek to operate would also need some decent decoy or self-defence suite systems due to the potential for being engaged by hostile GBAD and/or air systems.

Or to put it another way, Australia found that the MRH90 was not the right system for it, which means it likely is not the 'right' system for Ukraine either.