Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Maybe I'm getting old and jaded, but I still don't really comprehend how the LBASM capability is going to work, or more to the point, what it offers over, or even as well as fighter / strike / MPA with ASMs, or for that matter, destroyers, frigates and corvettes, or even old school FACs.

I get HIMARS, and think the ADFs acquisition of it or MLRS is decades over due. I get longer range tactical missiles, even GLCM (all with ASV capability). I could understand acquiring a mobile system using different missiles for different effects, including ASM. AEGIS Ashore and/or a mobile equivalent also makes sense, especially if cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles are incorporated as well as multi role SM-6. I just don't get LBASM as a stand alone capability.

If it need to be deployed in troop strength minimum, with its versions control, targeting and data links, as well as security elements, we are talking a lot of amphibious lift to get them out of country as well as significant road movement in country. With the amphib s, they will need escorts and logically speaking, those escorts should have an integrated air defence system, data links, ASW and ASV capability themselves.

So why LBASM?

I'm am knocking it but I also, seriously need to have someone explain it to me. I get the feeling this may be like the US Army WWII tank destroyer doctrine or the UKs turret fighters. Seems workable, even, necessary, but ends up being so specialised that it is almost never used as intended and other capabilities would have been a better investment.

I'm no expert so this is my best guess.
It offers another layer of complexity to an adversary contemplating mischief in our maritime environment.
Be it our island nation or where we seek to deploy overseas.

While I can see the arguments for spending limited finances on other capabilities and there well many be merit on such an approach .
I can also see such a capability having a great deterrence factor that should be at least considered.

I liken it to a maritime land mine.
The other guy knows you have them, but not where they are or how many you have. It complicates their mores.
Sure the ADF has planes and ships and other things that go bang, but in all reality given the enormous size of our land mass and the seas surrounding it, our equipment while impressive on some levels will always be dwarfed by the task at had.

Just open to the fact that LBASW may be good bang for your buck.

Cheers S

 

[OldTex]

I am also at a loss why Army is having LBASM thrust upon it.
Wouldn't a Corvette be a more mobile platform for this capability?
A Corvette could hide among the many islands with its shallow draft, move regularly and be a pretty difficult target.
Once a LBASM battery is on land, it needs to be supported, needs airdefence, needs protection from Special Forces, and is going to be an absolute hog for logistics as well as a horrible place to be.
Imagine being deployed to man such a battery on a remote island, not knowing of the enemy know you are there or not, Wether you are like a re trans position....trust me, being on a retrans station is like a reality TV show "alone" .

Like you I have difficulty understanding what LBASM can provide to the ADF that other platforms cannot provide. LBASM makes sense in places like the Baltic, especially round Finland, Sweden and Denmark. It makes sense in the Straits of Gibraltar, Hormuz and the Bosphorus. In these locations it is just long range coastal defence artillery. Once it is moved from the mainland it becomes more constrained in its mobility and, as pointed out, the logistics, command & control and protection become a significant burden. There is also the additional hurdle of the diplomacy required if the island location is not Australian territory.

I can also see such a capability having a great deterrence factor that should be at least considered.

I liken it to a maritime land mine.
The other guy knows you have them, but not where they are or how many you have. It complicates their mores.

I can understand this point of view. However it is flawed because a LBASM does not operate in the same way that a land mine/booby trap/IED. The first is targetted and controlled whereas the second is victim initiated and indiscriminate.

 

[vonnoobie]

LBASM makes sense for Australia only when it is deployed around the ASEAN territories, Could it one day maybe have a use? Yes, Is it an effective use of resources both financial and manpower wise? No. The logical step would be to looking at an ASM that can be fired from our future HIMARS, No extra cost in man power, no extra cost in vehicles just a much lower cost in acquiring and maintaining X amount of ASM's that can be used if ever needed. Hell if they willing to pay for new vehicles make them extra HIMARS.

 

[Massive]

ends up being so specialised that it is almost never used as intended and other capabilities would have been a better investment.

Could not agree more.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Takao]

TBH I have felt that it seemed more like someone in Australia had decided that Army should follow in the direction the USMC seems to be heading, and therefore if the USMC is looking at establishing a capability like ground-launched AShM, then Army should too. This might also explain why the DSR stated:

A lot closer to the mark than many would admit to, I think. Certainly in the late 10s the USMC-fetish within AHQ was huge, mainly driven by a handful of USMC SAWS graduates. All ignored the very obvious difference between the USMC and the Australian Army - the USMC has an entire Army backing it that can pick up all missions they cannot/don't want to do. So disposing of tanks is fine, because they can lean on the US Army to supply them. The USMC can by hyperfocused because of the 'x' number of tasks given to the Land Force by Government, they can offload a bunch to the US Army. We.....can't.

In some respects, the above taken right from the DSR makes me wonder if some of those who contributed really understood what they were writing or not. Having Army optimized for amphibious operations I could understand, but to state that Army must be optimized for littoral (as in by/on the coast, or the areas between low and high tides, or situated on or near a shore, etc.) seems to be directing Army away from areas where armies traditionally operate to cover a land-based segment that would be more in the RAN's bailiwick. I could seem some Army/RAN overlap of responsibilities in terms of ship-to-shore connectors for amphibious ops, but to direct Army to operate in coastal areas which would naturally also require operating in coastal waters...

Insert my soap-box about wasting money on a riverine capability or land-based anti-ship missiles. Also insert my soapbox that all our landing craft should be operated by the RAN - between them and the OPVs name a better place to grow the seamanship and leadership skills of our junior sailors and officers? It also prevents a repeat of the bureaucratic nightmare that has had to be established to ensure airworthiness but now for seaworthiness.

 

[knightrider4]

A lot closer to the mark than many would admit to, I think. Certainly in the late 10s the USMC-fetish within AHQ was huge, mainly driven by a handful of USMC SAWS graduates. All ignored the very obvious difference between the USMC and the Australian Army - the USMC has an entire Army backing it that can pick up all missions they cannot/don't want to do. So disposing of tanks is fine, because they can lean on the US Army to supply them. The USMC can by hyperfocused because of the 'x' number of tasks given to the Land Force by Government, they can offload a bunch to the US Army. We.....can't.




Insert my soap-box about wasting money on a riverine capability or land-based anti-ship missiles. Also insert my soapbox that all our landing craft should be operated by the RAN - between them and the OPVs name a better place to grow the seamanship and leadership skills of our junior sailors and officers? It also prevents a repeat of the bureaucratic nightmare that has had to be established to ensure airworthiness but now for seaworthiness.

I think its a classic solution desperately looking for a problem. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason its being considered is because its cheap and the acquisition gives the impression of doing something without actually having to spend much. Could I ever see a capability like this being used in the Australian context? Highly doubtful.

 

[old faithful]

ADF to recreate ‘Z Special’ unit to address Indo-Pacific threats

The ADF is creating a Special Forces unit based on the 'Z Special' unit in World War II to address the increasing threat of China in the Indo-Pacific. How the regiment will operate is yet to be finalised.

www.skynews.com.au

Defence to recreate Z Special unit?

No details, but I wonder if this is to compliment SASR, or replace SASR, or 2 Sqn?

 

[OldTex]

ADF to recreate ‘Z Special’ unit to address Indo-Pacific threats

The ADF is creating a Special Forces unit based on the 'Z Special' unit in World War II to address the increasing threat of China in the Indo-Pacific. How the regiment will operate is yet to be finalised.

www.skynews.com.au

Defence to recreate Z Special unit?

No details, but I wonder if this is to compliment SASR, or replace SASR, or 2 Sqn?

The report on the Skynews website is almost like a journalistic thought bubble. There is about 3 lines which say nothing and doesn't even claim to be from 'reliable sources' or the perennial favourite of 'anonymous sources'. Why would there be a need for yet another SF unit when there is SASR, 1 Cdo, 2 Cdo and SOER plus others (Sigs, Log and Avn).

Z Special unit was raised for reconnaissance and sabotage behind enemy lines. So South Pacific nations would be asking 'who is the enemy" and 'where is the frontline'. Those countries could also start to view all ADF as clandestine 'Z force' aiming to interfere in their internal affairs. That is not how the GoTD should want the ADF to be perceived.

If the GoTD wants to engage with the South Pacific nations then use the ADF (especially construction engineers, medical personnel and other technical personnel) on assistance tasks that the specific countries identify (schools, hospitals, wharves, roads, bridges and airstrips). Those tasks have been done internally within Australia so why not do it with the South Pacific countries.

 

[Stampede]

The report on the Skynews website is almost like a journalistic thought bubble. There is about 3 lines which say nothing and doesn't even claim to be from 'reliable sources' or the perennial favourite of 'anonymous sources'. Why would there be a need for yet another SF unit when there is SASR, 1 Cdo, 2 Cdo and SOER plus others (Sigs, Log and Avn).

Z Special unit was raised for reconnaissance and sabotage behind enemy lines. So South Pacific nations would be asking 'who is the enemy" and 'where is the frontline'. Those countries could also start to view all ADF as clandestine 'Z force' aiming to interfere in their internal affairs. That is not how the GoTD should want the ADF to be perceived.

If the GoTD wants to engage with the South Pacific nations then use the ADF (especially construction engineers, medical personnel and other technical personnel) on assistance tasks that the specific countries identify (schools, hospitals, wharves, roads, bridges and airstrips). Those tasks have been done internally within Australia so why not do it with the South Pacific countries.

So little information, which if at all true begs the question why!

Not sure if this one has legs.

There was some talk of a third reserve commando Company based in OLD.
I could see that working.


Cheers S

 

[Mikeymike]

Personally I could see how a regiment of "Independent Companies" could be strategically valuable, comprising reinforced companies specializing in independent operations within the Pacific theater. These units would prioritize self-sufficiency and adaptability, operating with disrupted or limited supply lines.

For instance, an "Independent" company could be deployed via landing craft to an island, equipped with their own ISR sytems, anti-air and anti-ship missiles. By dispersing such units across different islands, enemy planning within the archipelagos would become more complex and challenging.

That is the only sort of unit similar to what Australia had in WW2 I could see the creation of that isn't already covered by the SASR or Commandos.

 

[old faithful]

I have a feeling we might be seeing the rebranding of the SASR.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have a feeling we might be seeing the rebranding of the SASR.

Perhaps, though I do wonder if the ADF has anything that is really analogous to the RN's SBS. The RAN's Clearance Diving branch seems to be somewhat similar but does not have the same degree of land ops as I think the SBS might have.

OTOH a new, re-raised Z Special Unit might just be a permanent operational command from the SASR, 1 CDO or 2 CDO, not unlike TAG or TAG (East), with a particular emphasis on operating from water onto land, or operating from land conducting maritime raids of ports, harbours and littoral waters.

 

[Bob53]

I have a feeling we might be seeing the rebranding of the SASR.

I really hope not. If any allegations get proven sure prosecute to the full but don’t wipe everyone with the same cloth. It’s bit like saying well there have been some stupid comments on defence talk so everyone there must be stupid.

 

[Volkodav]

I really hope not. If any allegations get proven sure prosecute to the full but don’t wipe everyone with the same cloth. It’s bit like saying well there have been some stupid comments on defence talk so everyone there must be stupid.

Technically the allegations have been proven. That is why the defamation action seemed such a strange move, the burden of proof becomes one of probability instead of one of reasonable doubt, where a technicality can prevent conviction of the guilty.

The civil case actually shows the regiment and its members in a very good light. The majority stood up for what they saw as right, they testified against a man who had been a friend, a comrade, who is still a brave and accomplished soldier. They stood up against a command and political structure that wanted it all to go away.

Now this won't be a popular comment, but just like a minority of corrupt police tainting all police, a minority of soldiers commiting war crimes, or even just abusing civilians, does reputational damage to all.

China already is pushing propaganda on all Australian soldiers being murderers. China's toe hold in the Solomon's pretty much garantees they will be telling the locals that the SAS are murderers, if you work with them, they will force you to commit crimes or kill you if you don't.

Time I think for the SAS to step back from the spotlight, concentrate on the core missions they were formed to conduct. Concentrate on being the best at what they do, rather than being a platform for glory boys and self promotors. Seriously, how broken are things when an soldier, let alone a corporal with a dubious reputation, hob nobs with billionaires, while the guys who did their jobs, without the notoriety, fame and financial rewards, are called cowards and liars.

SAS switches back to strategic reconnaissance, surgical strike etc. Commandos do raids, and I imagine Z will do sabotage, work with local elements, start and support insurgencies.

The scary thing is, if Z is reestablished in its original role, that suggests the government is assuming China may annex Solomon's and other SWP nations in the early days of any conflict.

The other thought is, if we are looking to LBASM and other deployable strike assets, could there be a place to M Force, i.e. the Coast Watchers.

 

[Stampede]

Technically the allegations have been proven. That is why the defamation action seemed such a strange move, the burden of proof becomes one of probability instead of one of reasonable doubt, where a technicality can prevent conviction of the guilty.

The civil case actually shows the regiment and its members in a very good light. The majority stood up for what they saw as right, they testified against a man who had been a friend, a comrade, who is still a brave and accomplished soldier. They stood up against a command and political structure that wanted it all to go away.

Now this won't be a popular comment, but just like a minority of corrupt police tainting all police, a minority of soldiers commiting war crimes, or even just abusing civilians, does reputational damage to all.

China already is pushing propaganda on all Australian soldiers being murderers. China's toe hold in the Solomon's pretty much garantees they will be telling the locals that the SAS are murderers, if you work with them, they will force you to commit crimes or kill you if you don't.

Time I think for the SAS to step back from the spotlight, concentrate on the core missions they were formed to conduct. Concentrate on being the best at what they do, rather than being a platform for glory boys and self promotors. Seriously, how broken are things when an soldier, let alone a corporal with a dubious reputation, hob nobs with billionaires, while the guys who did their jobs, without the notoriety, fame and financial rewards, are called cowards and liars.

SAS switches back to strategic reconnaissance, surgical strike etc. Commandos do raids, and I imagine Z will do sabotage, work with local elements, start and support insurgencies.

The scary thing is, if Z is reestablished in its original role, that suggests the government is assuming China may annex Solomon's and other SWP nations in the early days of any conflict.

The other thought is, if we are looking to LBASM and other deployable strike assets, could there be a place to M Force, i.e. the Coast Watchers.

My take is how many special forces groups do you need?
The ADF is only so big. We are not the US or some other very large defence force.
There is currently a broad range of capability offered within the existing Special Operations Command.
If it needs to grow or diversify then do so with what is already established.

Agree with Volk re " the SAS to step back from the spotlight, concentrate on the core missions they were formed to conduct."
I feel it maybe prudent to have the SASR moved to the east coast.
They can "rejoin the Army" again rather than be a remote regular enclave on the other side or the Big Island.
Have some Reg / Ares Commando's in Perth, which I feel would be a better fit all-round as they are a much bigger unit.
I can certainly see merit for the Commando's growing in size with additional company's/ Squadrons of both fulltime and part time soldier's.
Hopefully additional Commando units down the track for each of our four largest city's......... Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

To my understanding The Commandos appear to have moved closer to being somewhat a de facto SAS, rather than their roots which were more of a specialized light infantry.
If true I can see a space for that flexible and mobile Coy plus sized force that is light and able to operate by air and sea.
Leave the small team stuff for the SASR.

Maybe this larger future Commando force is your "Z-Force."

...........................................................................................................................

If their is to be unit name changing just for feel good political purposes, then I don't see that as the way forward.

The SASR as a unit should have a place within Army.



Cheers S

 

[Massive]

All ignored the very obvious difference between the USMC and the Australian Army - the USMC has an entire Army backing it that can pick up all missions they cannot/don't want to do. So disposing of tanks is fine, because they can lean on the US Army to supply them. The USMC can by hyperfocused because of the 'x' number of tasks given to the Land Force by Government, they can offload a bunch to the US Army. We.....can't.

We are on the path to an adventure force rather than an army. Able to embark on adventures but far too light to have much of an impact once they get to wherever they are going.

Sad really.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Takao]

We are on the path to an adventure force rather than an army. Able to embark on adventures but far too light to have much of an impact once they get to wherever they are going.

Sad really.

Regards,

Massive

Which, sadly, will cost lives.

It's always made my eyebrow raise, when us Canberra based peeps say 'we accept the risk' when its a PTE/LCPL who actually does.

But the other question that many don't seem to grasp. If the armour isn't survivable, what do you think happens to dismounts? I get there are some impressive lifters in the Bn's, but no one I know of can carry body armour that'll shrug off 30 mm (or more) like the front of an IFV or M1...

 

[Volkodav]

Which, sadly, will cost lives.

It's always made my eyebrow raise, when us Canberra based peeps say 'we accept the risk' when its a PTE/LCPL who actually does.

But the other question that many don't seem to grasp. If the armour isn't survivable, what do you think happens to dismounts? I get there are some impressive lifters in the Bn's, but no one I know of can carry body armour that'll shrug off 30 mm (or more) like the front of an IFV or M1...

The light infantry guys who fought in the SWP in WWII knew ranks save lives.

Donald Dunstan ( the general not the SA politician) remembered that and had Centurion deployed to Vietnam for that reason.

Peter Cosgrove recalled the use of tanks in Vietnam when he, as Chief of Army, oversaw the acquisition of Abrams.

Now we are back to the fiction that tanks aren't survivable so everything needs to be done by light infantry. At least we don't have the bs that body armour, helmets, chest rigs and slings are for wooses any more.

 

[OldTex]

The light infantry guys who fought in the SWP in WWII knew ranks save lives.

Donald Dunstan ( the general not the SA politician) remembered that and had Centurion deployed to Vietnam for that reason.

Peter Cosgrove recalled the use of tanks in Vietnam when he, as Chief of Army, oversaw the acquisition of Abrams.

Now we are back to the fiction that tanks aren't survivable so everything needs to be done by light infantry. At least we don't have the bs that body armour, helmets, chest rigs and slings are for wooses any more.

Any military formation, group or equipment if used badly won't survive on a battlefield, but the same formation,group or equipment used intelligently and in a way that maximises its advantages and minimises the opponent's ones will survive. It won't mean there won't be losses or caualties but at least they will be lower than otherwise.

 

[Redlands18]

Apache helicopters to be based in Townsville - Australian Defence Magazine
Confirmation that 1 Avn Regt with the AH-64E is moving to Townsville and the UH-60M will all be based in Sydney. This is to simplify maintenance of the ADFs Helicopter fleet with all Boeing Helicopters (AH-64, CH-47) in Townsville and all Sikorsky Helicopters (MH-60R, UH-60M) in Sydney, the only exception would be a small number of AH-64 and UH-60Ms at the Aviation school at Oakey.