Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Takao]

An article of interest in the recent Defence Technology review regarding the future composition of the US marine Corp.

https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-apr-2020/flipbook/8/

Just wondering what influence this will have on the force structure of other nations defence forces and in particular with regards to that of the Australian Army.
While I acknowledge the US Marines land components is not necessarily the same as that of their army, there were certainly similarity's which will look much different come 2030 if the proposed changes go ahead.
While the ADF is not necessarily a mini US marine Corp given we have to accommodate the full range of land contingency's, does this proposed US Marine structure reflect the expected battle space for the future that all armed forces will have to adjust to?

Thoughts..
Regards S

It will influence it in that all FVEYs concepts influence the force structure and design work. The USMC is probably the least (despite the USMC being very similar in structure and kit to the ADF) because as you point out, we have to do the full range of land operations while the USMC doesn't.

There are some die-hard adherents to the new USMC concept that are pushing it within Russell; but also significant opposition. Personally, I think it is internally contradictory and has significant flaws. On top of that, it's come too late to impact any force structure action for the next few years.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I wonder if the USMC reforms may provide an opportunity for the Australian Army to acquire some equipment that will be deemed surplus to requirements. Specifically, we know we need more Abrams to allow each ACR to have a full squadron, and also there's a requirement for an armoured engineering capability. Is this an opportunity, or would they likely not be what we'd want?

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder if the USMC reforms may provide an opportunity for the Australian Army to acquire some equipment that will be deemed surplus to requirements. Specifically, we know we need more Abrams to allow each ACR to have a full squadron, and also there's a requirement for an armoured engineering capability. Is this an opportunity, or would they likely not be what we'd want?

I would imagine the US army gets first opportunity.

 

[Boagrius]

It will influence it in that all FVEYs concepts influence the force structure and design work. The USMC is probably the least (despite the USMC being very similar in structure and kit to the ADF) because as you point out, we have to do the full range of land operations while the USMC doesn't.

There are some die-hard adherents to the new USMC concept that are pushing it within Russell; but also significant opposition. Personally, I think it is internally contradictory and has significant flaws. On top of that, it's come too late to impact any force structure action for the next few years.

I've got to say that if we started to follow the USMC's path on this one I'd be more than a little concerned (albeit as a layman). It is one thing for the Marines to dispense with their MBTs and the associated close combat capability when it still exists in the US Army. To do so for us would mean losing it from the ADF completely. IMV the continued hardening and networking of the land force makes sense in the emerging threat environment and I do hope it continues with the enhancement and growth of the Abrams fleet alongside LAND400, SPH/K9, HIMARS etc.

 

[Stampede]

I've got to say that if we started to follow the USMC's path on this one I'd be more than a little concerned (albeit as a layman). It is one thing for the Marines to dispense with their MBTs and the associated close combat capability when it still exists in the US Army. To do so for us would mean losing it from the ADF completely. IMV the continued hardening and networking of the land force makes sense in the emerging threat environment and I do hope it continues with the enhancement and growth of the Abrams fleet alongside LAND400, SPH/K9, HIMARS etc.

Agree with Army continuing to develop the "heavy stuff" ( Abrams fleet , LAND400, SPH/K9, HIMARS etc )
I do wonder if this changes the way we train with the US marines as they transition to their new structure. The ADF has a lot of contact with this Corps an cannot help but thick it will have an influence on our training and approach to operations.

Time will tell

To the decade ahead, assuming the above defence acquisitions go ahead and to schedule, will this again change the composition and structure of our regular Brigades.

Thoughts

Regards S

 

[Goknub]

My take is that it is a poor decision probably forced on them by the need to push more funding to other higher priorities.

The arguments don't really stack up for me. It's looking into the crystal ball and organising around a single scenario. It's one reason why the DOA doctrine was bad, it was good for one scenario only. Crystal balling becomes a justification to avoid lessons or scenarios you don't want to do. ie messy stabilisation missions or urban combat in dense cities. I think the Marines had it right with the Three Block War, in fact I think it should have been more widely adopted.

I do see that rocket artillery will increase in capability over gun artillery. I believe the K239 should be our focus, not K9 or HIMARS.

 

[Stampede]

My take is that it is a poor decision probably forced on them by the need to push more funding to other higher priorities.

The arguments don't really stack up for me. It's looking into the crystal ball and organising around a single scenario. It's one reason why the DOA doctrine was bad, it was good for one scenario only. Crystal balling becomes a justification to avoid lessons or scenarios you don't want to do. ie messy stabilisation missions or urban combat in dense cities. I think the Marines had it right with the Three Block War, in fact I think it should have been more widely adopted.

I do see that rocket artillery will increase in capability over gun artillery. I believe the K239 should be our focus, not K9 or HIMARS.

I use to think a HIMARS type of capability was a step too far for our sized Army but I'm coming around to the concept. Certainly some of our neighbours have gone done this path. As to gun artillery, I feel it certainly has a place and that place is on a mobile platform.
lets see if we ever get that SPG.

Regarding scenarios, we will just have to cover every contingency.........................................certainly a challenge for our sized force.
Without throwing mega dollars at Army I think the balance is about right.

Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

My take is that it is a poor decision probably forced on them by the need to push more funding to other higher priorities.

The arguments don't really stack up for me. It's looking into the crystal ball and organising around a single scenario. It's one reason why the DOA doctrine was bad, it was good for one scenario only. Crystal balling becomes a justification to avoid lessons or scenarios you don't want to do. ie messy stabilisation missions or urban combat in dense cities. I think the Marines had it right with the Three Block War, in fact I think it should have been more widely adopted.

I do see that rocket artillery will increase in capability over gun artillery. I believe the K239 should be our focus, not K9 or HIMARS.

Defence is yet to even publicly start the New Long Range Rocket System project, so we don’t yet know exactly which systems they are actually looking at, so may be a bit early to right off the K239. It does sound like an interesting platform with 2 different Calibre Rockets, 130mm and 227mm.

 

[Bob53]

Defence is yet to even publicly start the New Long Range Rocket System project, so we don’t yet know exactly which systems they are actually looking at, so may be a bit early to right off the K239. It does sound like an interesting platform with 2 different Calibre Rockets, 130mm and 227mm.

Whatever they choose for the Long Range rocket platform needs to be armoured truck mounted and under 30 Tonne so 2 can be carried on a C17. Same for the Arty. Land at Austere field and rapidly drive off to position anywhere up to 2-300kms away makes a lot of sense to me especially if we end up with a 300km + LR capability to target ships from MLRS type platform. Or just drive there. Yes we need under armour capability but I question why we need something as heavy as a SPG designed for front on battle in the DMZ or Fulda gap. The enemy in Australian logistics (talking north and Western AU) is distance. The logistics for everything is the same except for fuel and getting the platforms into position where the SPGs will amplify the logistics tail requirements. When was the last time the Australian Army conducted a large scale exercise with heavy kit in Northern WA?

 

[Redlands18]

Whatever they choose for the Long Range rocket platform needs to be armoured truck mounted and under 30 Tonne so 2 can be carried on a C17. Same for the Arty. Land at Austere field and rapidly drive off to position anywhere up to 2-300kms away makes a lot of sense to me especially if we end up with a 300km + LR capability to target ships from MLRS type platform. Or just drive there. Yes we need under armour capability but I question why we need something as heavy as a SPG designed for front on battle in the DMZ or Fulda gap. The enemy in Australian logistics (talking north and Western AU) is distance. The logistics for everything is the same except for fuel and getting the platforms into position where the SPGs will amplify the logistics tail requirements. When was the last time the Australian Army conducted a large scale exercise with heavy kit in Northern WA?

Survivability will be a major factor driving the SPH, you don’t have to even hit a Towed Gun to mission kill it, a HE strike within 20m could take out the crew, Ammo, support Vehicle, Comms, cause enough damage to the gun, that it has o be withdrawn for repairs. A heavily Armoured SPH would suffer minor damage at worst at that range.

 

[Boagrius]

Whatever they choose for the Long Range rocket platform needs to be armoured truck mounted and under 30 Tonne so 2 can be carried on a C17. Same for the Arty. Land at Austere field and rapidly drive off to position anywhere up to 2-300kms away makes a lot of sense to me especially if we end up with a 300km + LR capability to target ships from MLRS type platform. Or just drive there. Yes we need under armour capability but I question why we need something as heavy as a SPG designed for front on battle in the DMZ or Fulda gap. The enemy in Australian logistics (talking north and Western AU) is distance. The logistics for everything is the same except for fuel and getting the platforms into position where the SPGs will amplify the logistics tail requirements. When was the last time the Australian Army conducted a large scale exercise with heavy kit in Northern WA?

I'm not sure the CONOPS for these vehicles is so much to operate in the remote regions of Australia's north as it is to do so in the region north of that. Specifically as part of a land force that can be delivered via amphibs with enough protection to conduct operations against a peer adversary as part of a larger coalition (US, Japan, ROK etc). In this context I find the mobility and protection afforded by a system like the K9 pretty compelling

 

[Takao]

Whatever they choose for the Long Range rocket platform needs to be armoured truck mounted

Why? Why does something out of range of almost everything need armour? So passive protection a'la the HX77 / Bushmaster sure - but these things can just be a truck.

and under 30 Tonne so 2 can be carried on a C17.

Why do they have to be C-17 deployable? Don't get me wrong, a simple truck mounted system should be (and should be well under 30 t), but making it a need doesn't make sense. I've done the maths elsewhere, but the logistics breaks down quickly if you rely on C-17s. Plus, this is probably a Div Fires platform - the Bde + you are supporting didn't come by air.

Same for the Arty. Land at Austere field and rapidly drive off to position anywhere up to 2-300kms away makes a lot of sense to me especially if we end up with a 300km + LR capability to target ships from MLRS type platform. Or just drive there.

You've hit on it here - the range makes the platform insignificant. The important part of this system is the missile, not the vehicle. Although your artillery comment is questionable....

Yes we need under armour capability but I question why we need something as heavy as a SPG designed for front on battle in the DMZ or Fulda gap.

An SPG needs armour because it's range is much shorter. It will take fire, almost certainly indirect, but still a lot. It needs armour. Furthermore, until we get an autoloader, the crew needs to feed the gun - and anywhere the crew works needs armour. The MLRS doesn't have this issue as the crew don't feed the rockets.

As to why we need an SPG, because it's better than towed in every respect. Towed guns are simply means of killing Australian soldiers in batches of 10.... They give mobility, rate of fire, survivability - all of which is critical to a Land Force.

The enemy in Australian logistics (talking north and Western AU) is distance. The logistics for everything is the same except for fuel and getting the platforms into position where the SPGs will amplify the logistics tail requirements.

Logistics is always the problem. You put 3 or 7 Bde into Shoalwater Bay and logistics is an issue. Even some senior loggies simply don't comprehend the logistic cost of a modern Bde in a modern fight. But.... the SPG has a negligible impact - sort of. There isn't an increased fuel bill, there is a slight (maybe) increase in spares, but they aren't the logistics achilles of artillery. It's the shells. The sheer amount of 155mm that will be required is frightening - and why 26 Transport Sqn exists. The SPG will need more ammo sooner than towed guns - and that's where the problem will be. Having said that though, that's literally just a problem that throwing more trucks at it solves. And we have bucketloads of trucks!

When was the last time the Australian Army conducted a large scale exercise with heavy kit in Northern WA?

At a guess - 98? But - so?

Fighting in the Australian NW is a suckers game. Why would we do that? The bet at work is that if you land a Div in Broome, they have no more than a BG by the time they hit the QLD-NT border. That's before the RAAF and AAvn play.... And between then they have captured - nothing of value....

 

[Boagrius]

Fighting in the Australian NW is a suckers game. Why would we do that? The bet at work is that if you land a Div in Broome, they have no more than a BG by the time they hit the QLD-NT border. That's before the RAAF and AAvn play.... And between then they have captured - nothing of value....

If red team were to attempt a landing in Aus (!) I would have thought they'd go straight for the major population centres somewhere on the eastern seaboard. Supply lines are going to be a nightmare for them either way, might as well go straight for the prize. Probably a few more decades before anyone aside from the US could pull it off though. At any rate I think a protected SPH makes the most sense against a peer threat in just about any plausible contingency.

 

[Redlands18]

Fighting in the Australian NW is a suckers game. Why would we do that? The bet at work is that if you land a Div in Broome, they have no more than a BG by the time they hit the QLD-NT border. That's before the RAAF and AAvn play.... And between then they have captured - nothing of value....

Why in heavens name would anyone want to fight a land battle in NW Australia? Friend or foe. You could seize half of WA and you would have nothing useful in the short to medium term, you can’t even depend on finding fresh water, everything and i mean everything except the Air you breath would have to be brought in and that air will be about 45 degrees in Summer. There are far easier ways to defeat Australia than by a direct invasion, especially in the North.

 

[Bob53]

I agree that towed artillery isn’t survivable these day and the situation in the Ukraine shows that. I really hope we aren’t getting SPGs to go and take them to a war in Asia. In the event that Uncle Sam is putting America first and an enemy attempts to take a foot hold In northern Australia is the plan to just let them land in the north and bleed them from afar? The rocket platform should be armoured truck to give the mobility to get any location it’s needed quickly and tracked needs a secondary transport to do that. I like the concept of getting to area quickly, additional transport to firing position and the mobility while in the area.

 

[Takao]

I agree that towed artillery isn’t survivable these day and the situation in the Ukraine shows that. I really hope we aren’t getting SPGs to go and take them to a war in Asia. In the event that Uncle Sam is putting America first and an enemy attempts to take a foot hold In northern Australia is the plan to just let them land in the north and bleed them from afar? The rocket platform should be armoured truck to give the mobility to get any location it’s needed quickly and tracked needs a secondary transport to do that. I like the concept of getting to area quickly, additional transport to firing position and the mobility while in the area.

I think you have misunderstood two things.

SPH is not about fighting for the US. It's an essential need for the Brigade in any mission that needs artillery or against a threat with artillery. It works in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East - it will work anywhere we fight.

The rocket launcher needs to be protected, yes. Armoured, no. The former are our trucks, Bushmasters and Hawkeis. The latter are our tanks, CRVs and APCs. Making it an armoured platform would add weight and complexity against a threat it doesn't face.

 

[Boagrius]

Whatever they choose for the Long Range rocket platform needs to be armoured truck mounted and under 30 Tonne so 2 can be carried on a C17. Same for the Arty. Land at Austere field and rapidly drive off to position anywhere up to 2-300kms away makes a lot of sense to me especially if we end up with a 300km + LR capability to target ships from MLRS type platform. Or just drive there.

Just realised I posted the wrong video earlier. This is the one I meant to use:

 

[Milne Bay]

Just realised I posted the wrong video earlier. This is the one I meant to use:

Chalk and cheese aren't they.
K9 must be a near shoe in for Land XXX (can't remember the number)
The carrot of a manufacturing base in Victoria will be hard to resist.
MB

 

[Boagrius]

Chalk and cheese aren't they.
K9 must be a near shoe in for Land XXX (can't remember the number)
The carrot of a manufacturing base in Victoria will be hard to resist.
MB

That may be just the tip of the iceberg. Between K9, AS21 and K239 we could find ourselves building quite the relationship with our Korean friends. If the kit is a good as it seems that might not be such a bad thing...

 

[oldsig127]

Chalk and cheese aren't they.
K9 must be a near shoe in for Land XXX (can't remember the number)
The carrot of a manufacturing base in Victoria will be hard to resist.
MB

I was under the impression that the competitor was PzH2000 not Caesar. And if so, Rheinmetal are already building a manufacturing facility in Queensland. Which in my view means it's *less* likely to be the PzH because of the attraction of seeding more hi tech industry in another state. So for different reasons you may be right

oldsig