TheBoomerangKid
New Member
The Australian Army has just released "Australian Army Contribution to the National Defence Strategy 2024". Lots of good information and insights into why and how Army is evolving.
It is available here: https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/st...y-contribution-national-defence-strategy-2024
It is available here: https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/st...y-contribution-national-defence-strategy-2024
Interesting article.
It appears Army is very much on the Littoral train.
What's the driver for this rapid investment?
Cheers S
Has it been rapid? The defence review came out nearly 18 months ago but most ( not all) of the acquisition programs were in train well before its release
Strategic direction from Government in the form of the DSR.
True
"most ( not all) of the acquisition programs were in train well before its release"
For myself the pace of acquisition of the medium / heavy landing craft is what intrigues me.
They are big and in numbers that dwarf what maritime lift capability we had in the past.
Add HMAS Choules and the LHD's and we are creating a maritime Army.
Just don't call them marines.
Don't call them naval infantry.
But do call them capable of operating in the Littoral realm.
It wont happen over night and it will evolve.
How this capability is reflected in he Brigade / battalion structure will be interesting.
The new track and wheel acquisition" things" will very be very much integrated with the enhanced landing craft capability.
The Littorial train has left the station
Interesting times
Cheers S
The infantry is what interests me atm.
The battalion may just be an admin organisation, I can see the rifle companies evolving into something more like independent rifle companies, except for maybe the single mechanised brigade group.
This might not be a bad idea.
Go back to section level training, with a slant on counter insurgency. The infantry section of the 90s was a tight group, Platoon training becomes easy, and company group also becomes easy.
With the himars island hopping in a denial strategy, they will need protection. I guess the idea of denial would mean steering, or channeling an enemy force into a better kill zone.
The battalion may just be an admin organisation, I can see the rifle companies evolving into something more like independent rifle companies, except for maybe the single mechanised brigade group.
This might not be a bad idea.
Go back to section level training, with a slant on counter insurgency. The infantry section of the 90s was a tight group, Platoon training becomes easy, and company group also becomes easy.
With the himars island hopping in a denial strategy, they will need protection. I guess the idea of denial would mean steering, or channeling an enemy force into a better kill zone.
What does Army look like going forward
Have we got the same number of Coys/Sqns as the Beersheba / Keogh days and redistributed them into three speciased Brigades.
I think not.
Suggest its a total revamp.
Infantry of all types will be in different quantities and structures.
Little in the public domain so lots of speculation.
Do each of the surviving RAR's know what they will become and what they will look like.
Suggest they do.
Must be hush, hush, secret stuff!
Cheers S
The context for Australia is that the threat is very powerful, is its largest trading partner, and is closely connected in economic terms to every country in its region. That is further complicated by the fact that the China’s primary military objective (Taiwan) is tangentially related to Australia (at least from the point of view of the majority of the Australian public) and by some domestic political factors that apply in Australia but less so in (say) the US or Japan. A Japanese minister or a US general can talk openly about preparing for war with China. That language would be career ending in Australia.
Given all that very little of the threat analysis is put to the public domain in clear terms (except from some unhinged sabre rattling in a certain newspaper and the occasional opinion piece in ASPI).
My speculation is that the threat that the Australian Army needs to respond to is the formation of security agreements between China and nations in Australia’s northern approaches. If those security agreements allow prepositioned force protection for the security forces (if you think of the force protection elements that INTERFET brought to East Timor and then add shore based missiles then you get the picture) then that force protection would need to be neutralised in a major conflict.
Currently the threat of unfavourable security agreements has reduced (diplomacy and good luck) but that could all change (e.g., due to US and Australian political events that are out of scope of the thread).
Littoral lift is therefore about getting Army to the northern approaches for operations other than war, for prepositioning in advance of a conflict, and for reconnecting when it is safe to go to sea, rather than for amphibious assault (if it is intended for amphibious assault the ADF has an inadequate force structure to protect it).
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Australian Government is accelerating the development of an Australian designed and manufactured Loitering Munition, The Owl B for the Australian Army.
Made by Australian company Innovaero.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
Made by Australian company Innovaero.
Commonwealth to continue investment in Australian-first loitering munition
Perth-based SME Innovaero has confirmed the Commonwealth’s acceleration of development of Australia’s first sovereign precision loitering munition capability.