Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Anthony_B_78]

A

Anthony I cannot see how you equip a brigade with 129 hulls? Not all of those 129 will be IFV's there will be support elements there as well, leaving no attrition stock and very little for training.

Not a brigade; a battalion within the brigade, and some supporting sub-units perhaps. 9th Brigade has 5RAR(Mech) and 1st Armoured as its maneouvre elements. The latter has a squadron of Abrams and two will have Boxers. I could see 1st Armoured getting more of the Abrams. It depends how far they take the "single armoured combined-arms brigade".

You could see 9th Brigade having, effectively, a tank regiment, a cavalry regiment, and the mechanised battalion, plus a SPG artillery regiment, an armoured engineering capability and other CS and CSS elements.

To my mind, it makes sense, but I can see how and why many are disappointed. It is a shift away from the thinking we've had in recent years.

 

[old faithful]

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review

here is a copy of the review.
I have only had a brief read, and its not a very exciting read.
Some points.
A focus on the North of Australia, which is good.
A one battalion Mech brigade? Maybe 1 Mech and one motorised Bn?
More focus on Ghost Bat, I hope that does not mean no more F35s, as I could not find any info regarding extra FGA for the RAAF.
Focus on integrating LRASM for both F35 and F18F.
HIMARS.
Cancellation of the 2nd batch of SPG immediately.
More anti aircraft missiles/systems.
Did not find any info on the Hunters or corvettes....yet, need to have a more detailed read.

KAPYONG Day today, Lest we forget.

 

[knightrider4]

I had a feeling it was going to be a bit of a non event, very underwhelming from what I can see. As soon as you head a review with two of the most incompetent yes men, well the outcome was never going to be good.

 

[Redlands18]

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review

here is a copy of the review.
I have only had a brief read, and its not a very exciting read.
Some points.
A focus on the North of Australia, which is good.
A one battalion Mech brigade? Maybe 1 Mech and one motorised Bn?
More focus on Ghost Bat, I hope that does not mean no more F35s, as I could not find any info regarding extra FGA for the RAAF.
Focus on integrating LRASM for both F35 and F18F.
HIMARS.
Cancellation of the 32nd batch of SPG immediately.
More anti aircraft missiles/systems.
Did not find any info on the Hunters or corvettes....yet, need to have a more detailed read.

KAPYONG Day today, Lest we forget.

They have announced a short sharp review into the surface fleet to be handed down in the 3rd Qtr, so we still don't know the makeup of the Surface fleet, included in the review, they will look at how the SSNs will affect the Fleet. One thing Marles said, is, most navies are building larger numbers of smaller vessels.

 

[Julian 82]

They have announced a short sharp review into the surface fleet to be handed down in the 3rd Qtr, so we still don't know the makeup of the Surface fleet, included in the review, they will look at how the SSNs will affect the Fleet. One thing Marles said, is, most navies are building larger numbers of smaller vessels.

I imagine that statement would surprise most observers on defence talk. I don’t know any western navies that are building larger numbers of smaller vessels. The Germans are the only ones building corvettes but they operate in the Baltic. The Uk no, US no, the Canadians, French, Italians? I know the French are building a small number of gp frigates but this is in smaller number as compared to the FREMM class. I fear this is just a justification for cutting the Hunter class and replacing them with cheaper and less capable vessels.

 

[knightrider4]

They have announced a short sharp review into the surface fleet to be handed down in the 3rd Qtr, so we still don't know the makeup of the Surface fleet, included in the review, they will look at how the SSNs will affect the Fleet. One thing Marles said, is, most navies are building larger numbers of smaller vessels.

You can take that to mean that now we are getting SSN's we won't need 9 expensive Hunters therefore we can purchase some more less capable but much cheaper corvettes. Ahh politics the art of appearing to do something and not having to actually do anything.

 

[ADMk2]

You can take that to mean that now we are getting SSN's we won't need 9 expensive Hunters therefore we can purchase some more less capable but much cheaper corvettes. Ahh politics the art of appearing to do something and not having to actually do anything.

Well Army is losing most of it’s close combat capability.

RAAF is losing it’s all singing all dancing AIR-6500 / 6501 IAMD system (and pie in the sky funding) for a more immediate reality based medium ranged SAM system (and it has already lost Sky Guardian).

Navy has to give up something in exchange for it’s nuclear subs and as it’s contribution to the overall cost-cutting exercise this seems to be, so that “seems” at this stage as if it will be at least some Hunters. Now technically killing perhaps 3x Hunters and adding 3x Flight II Air Warfare Destroyers, plus adding handful missile armed Corvettes (perhaps at the expense of the last half a dozen Arafuras) would meet this high level guidance and ‘may’ even meet the overall intent of cutting cost, given how high end and expensive the Hunters have become…

 

[Morgo]

I imagine that statement would surprise most observers on defence talk. I don’t know any western navies that are building larger numbers of smaller vessels. The Germans are the only ones building corvettes but they operate in the Baltic. The Uk no, US no, the Canadians, French, Italians? I know the French are building a small number of gp frigates but this is in smaller number as compared to the FREMM class. I fear this is just a justification for cutting the Hunter class and replacing them with cheaper and less capable vessels.

He's presumably been in AUKUS mode, and is thinking about the Type 31 or Constellation class.

 

[Maranoa]

After reading it through, the entire effort seems like an ornate cost cutting scheme to me. Even the missile based long range strike has specifically been couched in the vague terms, makes me wonder if the additional HIMARS mentioned may be just the remaining 14 after the initial six. The lack of any expansion of the RAAF is amazing. Everything RAAF has already been funded under the previous Govt.

 

[CJR]

I imagine that statement would surprise most observers on defence talk. I don’t know any western navies that are building larger numbers of smaller vessels. The Germans are the only ones building corvettes but they operate in the Baltic. The Uk no, US no, the Canadians, French, Italians? I know the French are building a small number of gp frigates but this is in smaller number as compared to the FREMM class. I fear this is just a justification for cutting the Hunter class and replacing them with cheaper and less capable vessels.

This probably belongs in the RAN thread rather than the army thread...
The Poms have the Type 31/Arrowhead-140 underway to supplement the Type 26. Though, that's a rather large hull for a "light" frigate, but if you're looking for a large VLS to act as extra magazine space for the Hobart class it'd be the good bet. For something more light frigate size the Japanese Mogami class; South Korean Daegu class or Italian Thaon di Revel class "OPV" look to be in about the right ballpark.

 

[Wombat000]

IMHO There are some fundamentals about Army that will never change.
At the end of the day, the requirement to close with and contact the enemy will never change.

Everyone knows that towed artillery is inherently problematic on the modern battlefield, and the AS4 is no longer fit for purpose for deliberate close combat. - these issues will not simply magically go away or somehow become less relevant.

Therefore, IMO there is no end option other than the subsequent ordering of further SPH & IFV numbers.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

IMHO There are some fundamentals about Army that will never change.
At the end of the day, the requirement to close with and contact the enemy will never change.

Everyone knows that towed artillery is inherently problematic on the modern battlefield, and the AS4 is no longer fit for purpose for deliberate close combat. - these issues will not simply magically go away or somehow become less relevant.

Therefore, IMO there is no end option other than the subsequent ordering of further SPH & IFV numbers.

Agree on your first par, but how many IFVs and SPHs can you deploy and sustain in our immediate neighbourhood?

If you fill a Canberra LHD with armour, how long to get all of those vehicles on the beach? You have four embarked landing craft. They can carry one each at at time of Abrams, IFVs, Boxers, SPHs, etc. How long to do, say, six round trips to land 24 vehicles?

I know there will be more investment in additional amphibious lift, but this is what we have now. And even with the extra capabilities, it's not going to change the challenges you'll face on a Pacific island with underdeveloped infrastructure and difficult terrain.

Maybe in some scenarios, better to have a howitzer you can fly in by Chinook than a SPH that has to wait its turn to be landed ashore?

 

[Redlands18]

IMHO There are some fundamentals about Army that will never change.
At the end of the day, the requirement to close with and contact the enemy will never change.

Everyone knows that towed artillery is inherently problematic on the modern battlefield, and the AS4 is no longer fit for purpose for deliberate close combat. - these issues will not simply magically go away or somehow become less relevant.

Therefore, IMO there is no end option other than the subsequent ordering of further SPH & IFV numbers.

I'm not sure the M-777 will remain in service, they may be scrapped as the extra HIMARS enter service.

 

[Wombat000]

I agree, I think there are roles for towed lighter artillery, but they’re becoming more niche.
i also can appreciate that light weight guns would be trick for mountainous difficult terrain.

im thinking that tanks etc get bogged in Europe too, and heavy armour was used throughout Asia too.
Local nations seem to use them well enough as it’s not all beach & swamp.

I just cannot envisage the requirements of batteries of SPH & IFVs to limit or evaporate.

 

[Redlands18]

I agree, I think there are roles for towed lighter artillery, but they’re becoming more niche.
i also can appreciate that light weight guns would be trick for mountainous difficult terrain.

im thinking that tanks etc get bogged in Europe too, and heavy armour was used throughout Asia too.
Local nations seem to use them well enough as it’s not all beach & swamp.

I just cannot envisage the requirements of batteries of SPH & IFVs to limit or evaporate.

The issue with Towed Guns is Counter Battery Fire, a AS-9 can pull into a position fire several rounds and be gone in less than a minute, a Towed Gun cannot, and even if the enemy manages to land rounds before the AS-9 moves, it will take a direct hit with an AP round to take it out. With Towed Arty even a round landing 20-30m away (depending on terrain and cover) can mission kill it by taking out the crew, gun or truck.

 

[hauritz]

https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/littoral-warfare-indo-pacific

I would suggest that the USMC plans on how to conduct high end military operations in SE Asia could be one of the main influences in the DSR's restructuring of the army. Obviously interoperability between the ADF and USMC will be vital going forward.

Basically small force packages consisting of 75-100 troops dispersed throughout the region focusing on long range strike, anti-ship operations, surveillance, operating autonomous vehicles and degrading or destroying enemy A2AD systems.

With thousands of islands in our region, many unihabited, there is an opportunity for small units to control choke points and generally wreak havoc.

 

[Wombat000]

Agreed, this is why the requirement for SPH is inescapable, and further acquisition numbers are a no-brainer inevitability.

even if it’s convenient to place a light towed gun on a ridge in the jungle, it’s only useful until counter-fire finds it, and as Ukraine shows, that could even be a simple pesky drone.

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia is an island, albeit one of continental size, but an island nevertheless. Having the army focus on the littoral environment makes absolute sense. No the Army isn't the USMC BUT it needs to focus on its amphibious capabilities. You aren't going to be fighting in the western desert or the wide open plains of Europe, but on islands, and in archipelagoes which, if you look at map, close to you and numerous. A division / brigade / regiment of armour and mechanised troops is no good to you if you can't get it to where it's needed. Last time I looked M1 Abrams and the IFVs under consideration can't float or fly. I have said for yonks that the upcoming war in the Indo Pacific will be much like the Pacific War of WW2. The Australian Army, amongst others, is not structured our outfitted to fight such a war.

The whole focus of the DSR is the Indo Pacific and focusing the ADF towards the threats, real and potential, against Australia. It says:

"Our Alliance partner, the United States, is no longer the unipolar leader of the Indo-Pacific. The region has seen the return of major power strategic competition, the intensity of which should be seen as the defining feature of our region and time. As a consequence, for the first time in 80 years, we must go back to fundamentals, to take a first-principles approach as to how we manage and seek to avoid the highest level of strategic risk we now face as a nation: the prospect of major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest." P.17. Emphasis mine.​

Let's look at that: "... for the first time in 80 years, we must go back to fundamentals ..." That is the operative term. The current Defence of Australia strategy is no longer fit for purpose. So things have to change. It says later:

"1.7 As a result of this new strategic reality, our view is that this is not ‘just another Defence review’ that will shuffle available resources, or tweak the balance of the ADF. This Review, in conjunction with the acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines, will reshape the force structure, posture and capability of Defence for coming decades – and necessarily so." P.24. Emphasis mine.​

This isn't a cost cutting exercise as some claim but a complete restructure of Australian defence from the ground up. You need to look at the whole review within the context of that. They intend to move the ADF to a position where it can provide for the defence of Australian people and their way of life. Because of this needs and capabilities change.

 

[Wombat000]

Last I looked, Sherman’s were deployed to Iwo Jima.
Armour was deployed to PNG, Borneo during WW2 & Vietnam et al.
SEA nations themselves have substantial fleets of heavy armour.

If the concern is that tanks don’t float, then before one puts its eggs in Amphibs, then one must surely be secure in the sea lanes safety simply to get there.

Amphibs are awesome, but ASW is a prerequisite, correct?
…..And when you do get there, I’m guessing one will want an IFV and close armour support once ashore.

 

[old faithful]

There is also a mention of Army changing tactics to be more assemetric read into that what you will, but to me, it means a change in doctrine to more unconventional warfare, which with good planning and security, could be a very good plan.