Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
We are spending billions on acquiring the Boxer in an age where we are seeing the modern use of armoured vehicles in peer on peer conflict.
We are seeing their attributes and vulnerabilities.
I’m pretty sure the decision to acquire such limited numbers of ATGM launchers was before the major escalation in Ukraine two years ago.
Time for a re think
I understand why you think so. And ideally there'd be an ATGM launcher with spares for every designated CRV and IFV. But I believe Ukraine taught us otherwise. There are so many types of fires, with different characteristics, that overly investing in any single type, may be counter-productive.
Perhaps it is a good opportunity to keep the Spike buy dialed down and fill the remaining capacity with loitering munitions and deployable effectors and ISR assets, to create variety. Hero-30 to Hero-120 are particularly popular right now.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
I suspect as with the SPIKE LR2 launch system (in which around 40x launchers are to be acquired for the 137x odd turreted Boxer CRV's we are buying), most Redback and Boxer CRVs will be "fitted for but not with" Iron Fist APS (and the Kongsberg RWS) and there will be a pool of such systems available for specific training/deployment requirements as necessary.

I would not hold my breath waiting for the funding to be released to equip every land combat vehicle with such systems...
It will be interesting to see if / how the T2000-DE might fit into the mix for any future orders. There is no mention of it in the initial announcement of 129 but depending on how the drone threat evolves and if Ukraine's experience proves to be consistent, then it may prove to be essential. Can't imagine EOS would go the the expense of developing it if they didn't think it had a reasonable chance of securing a customer.

I also note that French Army Chief of Staff Gen. Pierre Schill played down the drone threat ”The life of impunity of small, very simple drones over the battlefield is a snapshot in time,”
 

Armchair

Well-Known Member
I realise defence stuff is expensive, but sometimes it is a false economy compromising platforms to such an extent.

We are spending billions on acquiring the Boxer in an age where we are seeing the modern use of armoured vehicles in peer on peer conflict.
We are seeing their attributes and vulnerabilities.
I’m pretty sure the decision to acquire such limited numbers of ATGM launchers was before the major escalation in Ukraine two years ago.
Time for a re think

Our limited numbers of armoured vehicles need to have the offensive and defensive systems from the get go.

Cav, IFV MBT need to be equiped to go when called
When called upon to go,it will be quick and without time to aquire and train with “ missing links “ that should already have been in service
A small army cannot afford such compromises

The fitted for but not with thing is a dated concept.

Time to reconsider and fund the requirement.

Cheers S
I agree They certainly should have purchased enough of the launchers to cover the number that they could deploy in the cavalry role plus spares (so more like 80 than 40) but I am not sure that it makes sense to have them permanently bolted to every vehicle in units that were on a three year readiness cycle.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I agree They certainly should have purchased enough of the launchers to cover the number that they could deploy in the cavalry role plus spares (so more like 80 than 40) but I am not sure that it makes sense to have them permanently bolted to every vehicle in units that were on a three year readiness cycle.
Assuming about a third a a given vehicle fleet is in reserve/ maintenance or for attrition I can understand having those vehicle not at full capacity.
The rest however should be up to speed.

Some perspective.

The amount of money spent acquiring the additional offensive and defensive systems is a small amount really relative to the billions spent on acquiring the initial vehicle.

realistically, we do something right or not at all

these are small fleets of vehicles
Let’s do justice to them
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I realise defence stuff is expensive, but sometimes it is a false economy compromising platforms to such an extent.

We are spending billions on acquiring the Boxer in an age where we are seeing the modern use of armoured vehicles in peer on peer conflict.
We are seeing their attributes and vulnerabilities.
I’m pretty sure the decision to acquire such limited numbers of ATGM launchers was before the major escalation in Ukraine two years ago.
Time for a re think

Our limited numbers of armoured vehicles need to have the offensive and defensive systems from the get go.

Cav, IFV MBT need to be equiped to go when called
When called upon to go,it will be quick and without time to aquire and train with “ missing links “ that should already have been in service
A small army cannot afford such compromises

The fitted for but not with thing is a dated concept.

Time to reconsider and fund the requirement.

Cheers S
To be honest given what we are seeing in the Ukraine I’d rather have some type of counter drone weapon. What’s the higher chance in any future conflict? A CRV engaging armour over 3kms away Or engaging a FPV drove 500m away and closing?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
To be honest given what we are seeing in the Ukraine I’d rather have some type of counter drone weapon. What’s the higher chance in any future conflict? A CRV engaging armour over 3kms away Or engaging a FPV drove 500m away and closing?
The 30mm cannon with airbursting rounds is supposed to provide excellent protection against drones.
Russia and Ukraine also have plenty of AFVs armed with 30mm cannons, but these aren't really paired with the necessary sensors, computers, and munitions.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
The 30mm cannon with airbursting rounds is supposed to provide excellent protection against drones.
Russia and Ukraine also have plenty of AFVs armed with 30mm cannons, but these aren't really paired with the necessary sensors, computers, and munitions.
Yes it would be effective if it could hit one but I don’t know how it would find and target An airborne threat the size of a shoe box travelling at 100kmh.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Assuming about a third a a given vehicle fleet is in reserve/ maintenance or for attrition I can understand having those vehicle not at full capacity.
The rest however should be up to speed.

Some perspective.

The amount of money spent acquiring the additional offensive and defensive systems is a small amount really relative to the billions spent on acquiring the initial vehicle.

realistically, we do something right or not at all

these are small fleets of vehicles
Let’s do justice to them
Every dollar spent is a dollar not spent elsewhere. Army has a finite budget as does every single project, including LAND 400. Were this to be done as you suggest, something else would have to give. There are entire battalions for example in the Army Orbat for example that today are not even equipped with Javelin ATGW, let alone the next-generation of ATGW. So which is the higher priority? Giving all of our units a proper anti-armour capability or vehicles which aren't deploying anyway, one?

Army doesn't go anywhere without conducting lead-up training, mission rehearsal exercises and the like. In the lead up to such, is when all the "fruit" comes out of the cupboard and the platforms are equipped to their full deployable spec.

Every Army operates this way.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Yes it would be effective if it could hit one but I don’t know how it would find and target An airborne threat the size of a shoe box travelling at 100kmh.
Boxers are supposed to get an APS, right? I remember so, I haven't followed LAND 400 in years. Anyway, if they do, the APS's sensors are more than enough for the task.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Every dollar spent is a dollar not spent elsewhere. Army has a finite budget as does every single project, including LAND 400. Were this to be done as you suggest, something else would have to give. There are entire battalions for example in the Army Orbat for example that today are not even equipped with Javelin ATGW, let alone the next-generation of ATGW. So which is the higher priority? Giving all of our units a proper anti-armour capability or vehicles which aren't deploying anyway, one?

Army doesn't go anywhere without conducting lead-up training, mission rehearsal exercises and the like. In the lead up to such, is when all the "fruit" comes out of the cupboard and the platforms are equipped to their full deployable spec.

Every Army operates this way.
Army is undertaking another restructure and army is getting a lot of new kit and capability that it has not had before.
Dynamic times.

I would have accepted this response ten years ago, but not with the rhetoric of the recent reviews.

Times have changed dramatically.


In a balanced ADF we need a capable Army.
One that does not look like the one going forward

argue the structure and composition till the cows come home but sometimes it’s just numbers
Numbers of platforms and equipment with the number of trained people to employ said items .

it costs I get it

Im a bit guarded about how much reserve”fruit is in the cupboard” patiently awaiting for service and the assumption an adversary will accomodate our training / buildup expectations.

When we start debating about such absolutely small numbers of items like ATGMs and the like I cant help but feel we have lost perspective of how compromised our Army has become over the decades.

it costs I get
Thats the answer
Funds

Cheers S
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Army is undertaking another restructure and army is getting a lot of new kit and capability that it has not had before.
Dynamic times.

I would have accepted this response ten years ago, but not with the rhetoric of the recent reviews.

Times have changed dramatically.


In a balanced ADF we need a capable Army.
One that does not look like the one going forward

argue the structure and composition till the cows come home but sometimes it’s just numbers
Numbers of platforms and equipment with the number of trained people to employ said items .

it costs I get it

Im a bit guarded about how much reserve”fruit is in the cupboard” patiently awaiting for service and the assumption an adversary will accomodate our training / buildup expectations.

When we start debating about such absolutely small numbers of items like ATGMs and the like I cant help but feel we have lost perspective of how compromised our Army has become over the decades.

it costs I get
Thats the answer
Funds

Cheers S
Every decision has a cost and every decision made on one thing is a decision made (indirectly) about another thing. Is another 90 odd missile launchers + warstock + Iron Fist APS for the whole vehicle fleet, worth what might be the cost of another troop of vehicles? Or another capability entirely missing from the Orbat? Sure Army could allocate the funds to do that and the offset may well be the loss of a troop worth of Boxer CRV's. Is that then worth it? Dunno, but I doubt it given the capability we have available with Block I Boxer's that have neither of those systems. I'd rather have another troop of Boxer CRV's personally, but that's why we have the Defence Capability Investment Committee, that has to weigh all these things up.

Projects don't have unlimited funds and where Army does have un-expended funding available (rarely) it DOES purchase more capability, a process noticeably employed when Army managed to convince Government to allow it to buy more CH-47F Chinooks several years back and expand the fleet, obviously resulting in more capability. Likewise the early retirement of MRH-90 and the freeing up of sustainment money for that fleet has allowed for increased capability investment in other areas.

It would be wonderful if that situation were more widespread. But that too would have to be offset somewhere else.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Army is undertaking another restructure and army is getting a lot of new kit and capability that it has not had before.
Dynamic times.

I would have accepted this response ten years ago, but not with the rhetoric of the recent reviews.

Times have changed dramatically.


In a balanced ADF we need a capable Army.
One that does not look like the one going forward
In here lies the problem - the 2023 Defence Strategic Review and the 2024 National Defence Strategy explicitly stated the ADF was no longer a balanced force, and instead was a force focused on Australia's greatest strategic risk. Under current thinking, it is hard to justify any increase to IFV capabilities or numbers.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
In here lies the problem - the 2023 Defence Strategic Review and the 2024 National Defence Strategy explicitly stated the ADF was no longer a balanced force, and instead was a force focused on Australia's greatest strategic risk. Under current thinking, it is hard to justify any increase to IFV capabilities or numbers.
Hmmmmm

Work with the existing numbers if we must, but at least ensure the platforms are fully up to speed in capability.

I think Takao you have been an ambassador for vehicle fleets on this forum over the years.

Still

Not all doom and gloom as Army is getting some much needed platforms and new capability.

That said it's still a fair question to beg the question as to how Army is placed going forward.

The ADF always needs balance.

A SSN has attributes and limitations.
However they don't fly or go on land and can influence only so much across the military domain!

Cheers S
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Canada’s investment in Army kit is minimal compared to the RCN and RCAF. Perhaps one factor for this is recruitment difficulties? The same likely applies to other commonwealth allies in the 5EYE family.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
An excellent article from DTR on Land 8710 Phase 2 for 8 Heavy Landing Ships. The 2 future Landing ship classes are now known as LC-M and LC-H, and they will displace between 3-5000t.
They bring up the crewing issues, quoting crews of 120-150, but the US Army does operate the Frank S Besson class on a crew of 31.
Yes what is this project all about?
18 medium and 8 heavy landing craft.

Certainly see can see some merit and need , but what a huge leap in quantity and size compared to what we have had in the past.

Looks like Armys composition and purpose is looking very different going forward!

Re the size and type of LCH the article raises some good points.

Much to discuss but number one for me is the realistic practicality or landing and extracting large ships on a beach.

At what size does a LCH become a LSD?

Cheers S
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
Yes what is this project all about?
18 medium and 8 heavy landing craft.

Certainly see can see some merit and need , but what a huge leap in quantity and size compared to what we have had in the past.

Looks like Armys composition and purpose is looking very different going forward!

Re the size and type of LCH the article raises some good points.

Much to discuss but number one for me is the realistic practicality or landing and extracting large ships on a beach.

At what size does a LCH become a LSD?

Cheers S
The Army (RAE Water Transport) once operated several ex WW2 LCMs which were roughly 3 times the size of the later LCHs.
They had plans to go even bigger until inter-service politics came along.
So instead they got the smaller LCH for a while until control was then passed to the Navy.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Yes what is this project all about?
18 medium and 8 heavy landing craft.

Certainly see can see some merit and need , but what a huge leap in quantity and size compared to what we have had in the past.

Looks like Armys composition and purpose is looking very different going forward!

Re the size and type of LCH the article raises some good points.

Much to discuss but number one for me is the realistic practicality or landing and extracting large ships on a beach.

At what size does a LCH become a LSD?

Cheers S
They should be called what they are, LSTs. An LSD should be able to transport smaller amphibs in the LCM/LCVP class and deploy them either by a well dock or a crane system, at this stage the only vessels I think the LC-H will be carrying are the planned riverine patrol boats LMV-P.
 

Armchair

Well-Known Member
Yes what is this project all about?
18 medium and 8 heavy landing craft.

Certainly see can see some merit and need , but what a huge leap in quantity and size compared to what we have had in the past.

Looks like Armys composition and purpose is looking very different going forward!

Re the size and type of LCH the article raises some good points.

Much to discuss but number one for me is the realistic practicality or landing and extracting large ships on a beach.

At what size does a LCH become a LSD?

Cheers S
Australia’s defence strategy is to deter aggression by projecting force in its northern approaches. There isn’t much point (given that strategy) having an army if it can’t get to those islands by sea. If the forces to be projected come from two places (e.g. Darwin and Townsville) then they would need to be moved by at least two vessels. 2 LHDs and an LPD can’t guarantee that so the ADF needs a larger littoral lift capacity than it has now.

You can certainly debate the strategy, and whether the Army should operate the watercraft, and whether the ADF could escort / protect two task forces but I would imagine both classes of vessel would be useful in benign environments outside of war and also before / after the hugh threat phases of a major war (and also that in coalition operations some of the force protection would be provided by others).
 
Top