Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bluey 006]

I can't add anything to the SPG/MLRS requirement apart from a general disappointment that equipment that was common by the end of World War 2 is still absent.

For the airborne side of things, I'm not sure if you are aware but 3RAR only just lost their wings. It was a capability maintained for a long time but its cost vs benefit ratio just didn't stack up. There are major drawbacks with any larger scale airborne operation due to issues of resupply. The personal injury toll is also horrendous and very costly on top of all the other extra costs.

2RAR in its maritime role has essentially replaced 3RAR as the "non-standard" battalion.

I do believe there is a need for a 4th Brigade but it should be an identical multi-role brigade. The ADF should be able to deploy and sustain a larger force than it currently can and that requires brigade #4, or a new Beersheeba 2.0 structure.

Yes I am aware that 3RAR lost its wings recently - a decision I agree disagree with. I appreciate the reasons, doesn't mean i have to agree.

Also - airborne rapid deployment forces have a multitude of functions beyond just paratroopers , while parachuting and air assault is their specialty if you look at similar forces around the world - they are elite rapid deployment light infantry, that fill a gab between conventional forces and special forces. Typically, large numbers of troops can be on the ground in contested environments within hours , not days or weeks - in modern conflict this can have a large impact. Consider the amount of carnage a group of some kind with an infinity for violence could do in a week (while major forces were in transit by sea) in a place like FIJI or a situation where sea denial by submarines or anti-ship missiles, or mines permitted deployment by amphibious forces.

While we certainly have the capabilities now mount a operation to tackle this, is it enough? The addition of airborne forces (while highly trained do not need to be up to the same standard as Special Forces) adds an element of flexibility we have lost.

I know budgets are tight and there are other priorities, but i do hope we see rapid deployment forces in some form at some stage in the future ( of course the political will to use them quickly and swiftly is also required)

 

[Goknub]

To a large degree what you describe is what the ADF has been creating in the last few years. The raising of 4RAR/2CDO gave the ADF a larger force to rapidly insert, by air if needed too. Likewise, Beersheba's multi-role brigades is converting all infantry battalions to light with the heavy armour located in the ACRs. This leaves them more able to rapidly deploy if required.
Finally, the C17 provides airlift on a scale we could only dream of before.

Operations in places like East Timor (1999 and 2006) could have been done much faster with C17s. Waiting for the ships to make the run from Darwin was a major bottleneck and if things had been "hotter" could have had dire consequences.
They also enable the air transport of transport and armoured vehicles which is the biggest weakness of an airborne force.

It's not an airborne brigade but it achieves much the same effect.

-----------------------

If anything the ADF has focused too much on the lighter scale. We could do Timor or Solomons very well today but could struggle if we went toe-to-toe with Daesh. We have no SPG, no MLRS, no IFV, no heavy mortars, a handful of infantry battalions and just 40-odd MBTs. We lack both the heavy weaponry and the depth to sustain a serious fight.
I'm horrified when I see the level of combat and attrition in Ukraine and compare it to what we could endure. All just my opinion.

 

[Bluey 006]

To a large degree what you describe is what the ADF has been creating in the last few years. The raising of 4RAR/2CDO gave the ADF a larger force to rapidly insert, by air if needed too. Likewise, Beersheba's multi-role brigades is converting all infantry battalions to light with the heavy armour located in the ACRs. This leaves them more able to rapidly deploy if required.
Finally, the C17 provides airlift on a scale we could only dream of before.

Operations in places like East Timor (1999 and 2006) could have been done much faster with C17s. Waiting for the ships to make the run from Darwin was a major bottleneck and if things had been "hotter" could have had dire consequences.
They also enable the air transport of transport and armoured vehicles which is be biggest weakness of an airborne force.

It's not an airborne brigade but it achieves much the same effect.

-----------------------

If anything the ADF has focused too much on the lighter scale. We could do Timor or Solomons very well today but could struggle if we went toe-to-toe with Daesh. We have no SPG, no MLRS, no IFV, no heavy mortars, a handful of infantry battalions and just 40-odd MBTs. We lack both the heavy weaponry and the depth to sustain a serious fight.
I'm horrified when I see the level of combat and attrition in Ukraine and compare it to what we could endure. All just my opinion.

I don't disagree with you there. We certainly need heavy forces and weapons, I think the Multi-role brigades and HNA will "eventually" lead to this. I also appreciate what you're saying regarding 2nd Commando but like I said originally realistically they are now Tier 1 Special Forces , we also have the SASR which are Tier 1 - Special Mission Units a step up again, the fact that that 2nd Commando, has by design or naturally evolved into a genuine Special Forces unit , there is quite a gap between SF and the infantry - one that could be filled by an Airborne unit ( when i say airborne I mean full spectrum airborne - paratroopers, air assault and air mobile elite light infantry). Think back over the last 25 years - can you think of a forced amphibious assault? Now think back - there have been numerous air assault/parachute operations.



this article sums it up to some degree - link

 

[ADMk2]

To a large degree what you describe is what the ADF has been creating in the last few years. The raising of 4RAR/2CDO gave the ADF a larger force to rapidly insert, by air if needed too. Likewise, Beersheba's multi-role brigades is converting all infantry battalions to light with the heavy armour located in the ACRs. This leaves them more able to rapidly deploy if required.
Finally, the C17 provides airlift on a scale we could only dream of before.

Operations in places like East Timor (1999 and 2006) could have been done much faster with C17s. Waiting for the ships to make the run from Darwin was a major bottleneck and if things had been "hotter" could have had dire consequences.
They also enable the air transport of transport and armoured vehicles which is be biggest weakness of an airborne force.

It's not an airborne brigade but it achieves much the same effect.

-----------------------

If anything the ADF has focused too much on the lighter scale. We could do Timor or Solomons very well today but could struggle if we went toe-to-toe with Daesh. We have no SPG, no MLRS, no IFV, no heavy mortars, a handful of infantry battalions and just 40-odd MBTs. We lack both the heavy weaponry and the depth to sustain a serious fight.
I'm horrified when I see the level of combat and attrition in Ukraine and compare it to what we could endure. All just my opinion.

Absolutely agree with the above. If we build a serious Army, with enough size, then we could think about an airborne capability. We never had an 'airborne' brigade and the idea we could sustain it, when we only have (barely) 3 regular brigades who are an amalgamation of capabilities, because we can't sustain or fund anything except a light infantry based force (or rather won't...) with a few supporting capabilities here and there, is ludicrous.

Few meaning less than 50x artillery pieces in the WHOLE Army, which comprise our ONLY extended range fire capability. About 40 operational tanks, which represent the ONLY capability we have even remotely capable of standing up to modern anti-armour weapons, let alone other tanks.

We can't sustain 3 battalions on a mid-intensity level operation, plus a separate battalion on a low intensity operation, despite that being the strategic requirement of Army, yet people want to create an entire BRIGADE as a single role Airborne element?

That is roughly what the UK maintains within an Army (cut to the bone as it may be...) that is still roughly 2.5x the size of ours...

 

[Bluey 006]

Absolutely agree with the above. If we build a serious Army, with enough size, then we could think about an airborne capability. We never had an 'airborne' brigade and the idea we could sustain it, when we only have (barely) 3 regular brigades who are an amalgamation of capabilities, because we can't sustain or fund anything except a light infantry based force (or rather won't...) with a few supporting capabilities here and there, is ludicrous.

Few meaning less than 50x artillery pieces in the WHOLE Army, which comprise our ONLY extended range fire capability. About 40 operational tanks, which represent the ONLY capability we have even remotely capable of standing up to modern anti-armour weapons, let alone other tanks.

We can't sustain 3 battalions on a mid-intensity level operation, plus a separate battalion on a low intensity operation, despite that being the strategic requirement of Army, yet people want to create an entire BRIGADE as a single role Airborne element?

That is roughly what the UK maintains within an Army (cut to the bone as it may be...) that is still roughly 2.5x the size of ours...

The original post talks about raising battalion , which forms the foundation of a Brigade - eventually.

No arguments that fire support and tanks, heavy weapons in general are underdone.

With the worlds 13th largest defence budget , you think we could do a little better

 

[ADMk2]

The original post talks about raising battalion , which forms the foundation of a Brigade - eventually.

No arguments that fire support and tanks, heavy weapons in general are underdone.

With the worlds 13th largest defence budget , you think we could do a little better

Fair enough but the talk moved on quickly to a brigade...

But to be honest, we have air mobile forces now. Our light infantry companies and battalions can deploy by C-17A, C-130J or by sea strategically and by vehicle, helos, boats, C-27J or foot, tactically. It ain't one or the other.

The only thing genuine airborne forces bring over the capability we have now is the ability to insert via parachute and the training liability this brings, is why we don't have it in such a tiny force.

If we expand our land force significantly, fine. Until we do, it's one more capability limitation we can easily live without.

 

[Raven22]

The original post talks about raising battalion , which forms the foundation of a Brigade - eventually.

No arguments that fire support and tanks, heavy weapons in general are underdone.

With the worlds 13th largest defence budget , you think we could do a little better

And where do we get the warm bodies? If the Army magically found itself with a thousand extra soldiers (or, rather, money to buy a thousand extra soldiers) they would not be used to form an extra infantry battalion. They would be used to reinforce the artillery regiments, engineer regiments, 1st, 2nd and 3rd line CSS and the thousand other support capabilities need to make the current manoeuvre force effective.

There's more chance of an infantty battalion being disbanded than raised. The good ideas piñata needs a rest.

 

[Volkodav]

Beersheba and the common Infantry battalions supported by common ACRs is the right start and as Raven stated, there are many enabling capabilities that need to be fleshed out, if not introduced, to actually provide the required level of capability and flexibility needed to meet the objectives desired by the government.

SPGs, or more to the point HIMARS should be a high priority but I have no idea whether we will see either. A more robust engineering capability is a no brainer, especially after combat experience in Afghanistan, and armoured engineers to support the ACRs, enabling them to do their job when required is also very important. Don't forget tank numbers, unless there is a plan to acquire AGS or DFS versions of the IFV and / or CRV more tanks are a must.

Another area of concern is aviation. How many deployed Tigers can the current fleet of 22 airframes support and for how long? Do we need more, maybe enough for a third squadron as has been suggested is need for the tanks?

Are seven Chinooks enough? We had eight and lost two so while seven Fs deliver more capability on paper the fact is we do send them into harms way and losses are a very real possibility that needs to be factored in.

What about CSAR and SOF support? A squadron of Blackhawks were retained at Holdsworthy, apparently because they were more suitable for supporting the Commandos than the MRH90 but what now? Then there is CSAR, we didn't send Blackhawks to Afghanistan to provide casualty evacuation as it was seen as too risky, yet other armies and air arms who use the NH 90 appear to be selecting alternatives to fill casevac and CSAR missions.

Will the MRH90s be sufficient or do we need another type to cover off the vital SOF and CSAR missions, could a squadrons worth of MH-60S Knighthawks (or Sierra), be worth looking at? They have a very high level of commonality with the Romeo, were designed with SOF support and CSAR in mind in addition to their VERTREP mission, they can fire both Hellfire and APKWS, as well as originally being intended to conduct airborne MCM (not sure how this is going but recall there was an issue with them not being able to tow the MCM sled). There could be justification of a SOF support squadron that also covers CSAR, or even an additional CSAR tasked squadron, they could even supplement the Tigers with their currently certified armament options. Getting off topic but the RAN FAA could do well to operate the type as well to supplement the Romeos as a much more capable replacement for the Squirrels that used to complement the SH-60Bs on the FFGs and maybe even introduce the long desired airborne MCM capability too.

All of this would, or should have higher priority than extra infantry battalions or reintroducing the para capability to the battalions or more to the point, a battalion, because that's what it was, a single battalion really only ever providing a single ready company at any time and often unavailable for any other deployment due to the need to maintain currency of the para qualification. Considering the 2nd Commando Regiment now cover the para role and it has a larger establishment and higher level of readiness than 3 RAR could have hoped to maintain, it probably makes far more sense to leave the capability with them.

Probably better overall to beef up existing and acquire new enabling capabilities and improve the quality of equipment. We have the C-17s and LHDs now, no need to limit ourselves to what will fit in the back of a Herc or on the deck of an LCM8. Go heavy on the IFV and CRV, get more tanks and upgrade or replace the existing fleet, M-1A2 SEP with TUSK II or even M-1A3 (when available) may prove better value for money than making do with the current M-1A1 SEPs. Consider M-1 based Breachers, or look outside the square and go for the German system (which I believe is modular) and graft it onto M-1s, M-88s or if the impossible happens and LAND 400 ends up ordering modified Namers, that platform.

 

[hairyman]

We may have the worlds 13th biggest defence budget, but to my mind the Army and Navy dont get a fair share of it. The RAAF seems to get whatever it wants at everyone else's expence.:duel

 

[Stock]

Beersheba and the common Infantry battalions supported by common ACRs is the right start and as Raven stated, there are many enabling capabilities that need to be fleshed out, if not introduced, to actually provide the required level of capability and flexibility needed to meet the objectives desired by the government.

SPGs, or more to the point HIMARS should be a high priority but I have no idea whether we will see either. A more robust engineering capability is a no brainer, especially after combat experience in Afghanistan, and armoured engineers to support the ACRs, enabling them to do their job when required is also very important. Don't forget tank numbers, unless there is a plan to acquire AGS or DFS versions of the IFV and / or CRV more tanks are a must.

Another area of concern is aviation. How many deployed Tigers can the current fleet of 22 airframes support and for how long? Do we need more, maybe enough for a third squadron as has been suggested is need for the tanks?

Are seven Chinooks enough? We had eight and lost two so while seven Fs deliver more capability on paper the fact is we do send them into harms way and losses are a very real possibility that needs to be factored in.

What about CSAR and SOF support? A squadron of Blackhawks were retained at Holdsworthy, apparently because they were more suitable for supporting the Commandos than the MRH90 but what now? Then there is CSAR, we didn't send Blackhawks to Afghanistan to provide casualty evacuation as it was seen as too risky, yet other armies and air arms who use the NH 90 appear to be selecting alternatives to fill casevac and CSAR missions.

Will the MRH90s be sufficient or do we need another type to cover off the vital SOF and CSAR missions, could a squadrons worth of MH-60S Knighthawks (or Sierra), be worth looking at? They have a very high level of commonality with the Romeo, were designed with SOF support and CSAR in mind in addition to their VERTREP mission, they can fire both Hellfire and APKWS, as well as originally being intended to conduct airborne MCM (not sure how this is going but recall there was an issue with them not being able to tow the MCM sled). There could be justification of a SOF support squadron that also covers CSAR, or even an additional CSAR tasked squadron, they could even supplement the Tigers with their currently certified armament options. Getting off topic but the RAN FAA could do well to operate the type as well to supplement the Romeos as a much more capable replacement for the Squirrels that used to complement the SH-60Bs on the FFGs and maybe even introduce the long desired airborne MCM capability too.

All of this would, or should have higher priority than extra infantry battalions or reintroducing the para capability to the battalions or more to the point, a battalion, because that's what it was, a single battalion really only ever providing a single ready company at any time and often unavailable for any other deployment due to the need to maintain currency of the para qualification. Considering the 2nd Commando Regiment now cover the para role and it has a larger establishment and higher level of readiness than 3 RAR could have hoped to maintain, it probably makes far more sense to leave the capability with them.

Probably better overall to beef up existing and acquire new enabling capabilities and improve the quality of equipment. We have the C-17s and LHDs now, no need to limit ourselves to what will fit in the back of a Herc or on the deck of an LCM8. Go heavy on the IFV and CRV, get more tanks and upgrade or replace the existing fleet, M-1A2 SEP with TUSK II or even M-1A3 (when available) may prove better value for money than making do with the current M-1A1 SEPs. Consider M-1 based Breachers, or look outside the square and go for the German system (which I believe is modular) and graft it onto M-1s, M-88s or if the impossible happens and LAND 400 ends up ordering modified Namers, that platform.

Link to June issue of Defence Technology Review below. Latest Land 400 news included.

Stock

Defence Technology Review : DTR JUN 2015, Page 1

 

[Stampede]

We may have the worlds 13th biggest defence budget, but to my mind the Army and Navy dont get a fair share of it. The RAAF seems to get whatever it wants at everyone else's expence.:duel

Just a question re armys Blackhawks and retiring CH-47D.
Does anyone know what's the future of these aircraft. I understand there was some talk of an upgrade of some blackhawks for the SF role. As to a Chinook fleet of 7 new CH-47F's I would suggest if there is an area in the ADF that needs a boost its in Medium helicopter lift numbers.

Welcome some info and thought

 

[40 deg south]

1 RAR first to receive enhanced F88 - Australian Army

Enhanced Steyr now being issued.

Interesting that NZ hasn't even short-listed it as one of the replacement options for NZ's Steyrs, instead including the Austrian-built equivalent as the sole bullpup among the contenders. Too pricy, perhaps? Or not considered to already be in service?

Individual Weapon Replacement [Ministry of Defence NZ]

 

[vonnoobie]

1 RAR first to receive enhanced F88 - Australian Army

Enhanced Steyr now being issued.

Interesting that NZ hasn't even short-listed it as one of the replacement options for NZ's Steyrs, instead including the Austrian-built equivalent as the sole bullpup among the contenders. Too pricy, perhaps? Or not considered to already be in service?

Individual Weapon Replacement [Ministry of Defence NZ]

I read that the NZ Steyrs had been getting a bad reputation, Improved or not it's hard to market something that is based off of the weapon they want to get rid of.

 

[Cadredave]

I read that the NZ Steyrs had been getting a bad reputation, Improved or not it's hard to market something that is based off of the weapon they want to get rid of.

Dont believe everything you read, those articles were written by our gutter press full of so much BS it wasn't funny, our steyr's did the job they were built to do it was the 1.5 scope that let the rifle down in Afghan from 300m - 600m+.

CD

 

[ADMk2]

Just a question re armys Blackhawks and retiring CH-47D.
Does anyone know what's the future of these aircraft. I understand there was some talk of an upgrade of some blackhawks for the SF role. As to a Chinook fleet of 7 new CH-47F's I would suggest if there is an area in the ADF that needs a boost its in Medium helicopter lift numbers.

Welcome some info and thought

There was some talk about re-manufacturing some -D model Chinooks and boosting the fleet to 12 birds and to upgrading and retaining some Blackhawks for SF roles, but it was only talk. There have been no publicised projects for either and to be honest, if the fleet of helos needs to be increased, I'd rather new-build aircraft of existing models so we don't develop 'fleets within fleets' issues down the track.

From all reports re-manufacturing Chinooks into -F models is more expensive than simply purchasing them off the shelf and we are currently spending far too much on 'make work' projects as it is.

Similarly for Blackhawks. Personally I'd rather the SF be made to 'make do' with MRH-90 and use the cash for a Kiowa utility replacement, plus perhaps some extra MRH-90 airframes.

 

[vonnoobie]

Dont believe everything you read, those articles were written by our gutter press full of so much BS it wasn't funny, our steyr's did the job they were built to do it was the 1.5 scope that let the rifle down in Afghan from 300m - 600m+.

CD

Oh I don't believe everything I read, But all to often a politician will read the crap, believe it and start's sticking their noses into the selection process.

They should honestly grab a hand full of troops, Give them the offered guns, and let them decide by them putting it through the paces.

 

[Stampede]

Dont believe everything you read, those articles were written by our gutter press full of so much BS it wasn't funny, our steyr's did the job they were built to do it was the 1.5 scope that let the rifle down in Afghan from 300m - 600m+.

CD

I read that the F88 enhanced Styer is to change from its origional colour to a flat black finish.
Just curious as to the reason for the colour change.

 

[ADMk2]

I read that the F88 enhanced Styer is to change from its origional colour to a flat black finish.
Just curious as to the reason for the colour change.

It's more 'gucci' than the older 'green' model F-88s and therefore more accepted among the troops who desire the 'coolness' factor of weapons such as the M4...

 

[Stock]

Just a question re armys Blackhawks and retiring CH-47D.
Does anyone know what's the future of these aircraft. I understand there was some talk of an upgrade of some blackhawks for the SF role. As to a Chinook fleet of 7 new CH-47F's I would suggest if there is an area in the ADF that needs a boost its in Medium helicopter lift numbers.

Welcome some info and thought

Haven't heard anything about an upgrade of the Black Hawks to continue in their SF role, but it would make a lot of sense if the airframes are able to handle another 10-15 years in service. I do know SF are not happy at all with MRH90. They don't want it.

Acquisition of a new dedicated SF helo (12-15 airframes) would be a major undertaking and not come cheap. Mind you, we seem able to find the money to buy extra C-17s and air-to-air refuellers easily enough.

And agree that 7 new CH-47F Chinooks are inadequate. That fleet really should be 10-12 at least, particularly now the LHD (aviation-centric ships) are coming on line. The LHD has a deck able to handle 4 x CH-47 simultaneously. That's a lot of troops and equipment heading ashore in a single lift.

 

[t68]

Haven't heard anything about an upgrade of the Black Hawks to continue in their SF role, but it would make a lot of sense if the airframes are able to handle another 10-15 years in service. I do know SF are not happy at all with MRH90. They don't want it.

Acquisition of a new dedicated SF helo (12-15 airframes) would be a major undertaking and not come cheap. Mind you, we seem able to find the money to buy extra C-17s and air-to-air refuellers easily enough.

And agree that 7 new CH-47F Chinooks are inadequate. That fleet really should be 10-12 at least, particularly now the LHD (aviation-centric ships) are coming on line. The LHD has a deck able to handle 4 x CH-47 simultaneously. That's a lot of troops and equipment heading ashore in a single lift.

if memory serves me correct their was talk of keeping some of the Blackhawks for SF use, and when tenders went out for their replacement Sikorsky felt that because of the low airframe hours compared to the US we could have gotten away with an avionics upgrade.

To me this would have been the more logical choice we could have ordered Seahawks for duty on the amphibious assets and upgraded the current fleet to the same avionic standards to give us a larger overall fleet and FOC quicker than the MRH