Of course there is a place. A 'budgetary place' hence why Army has traditionally been light infantry based, when it should really be fires based...
But light infantry is cheap and easy to house, train and equip and anything else, isn't...
But light infantry is cheap and easy to house, train and equip and anything else, isn't...
Clearly some time since August 2023, when Government approved and "expedited" the acquisition of HIMARS.
The Government has said it several times now. Army has said it several times, and heere is Lockheed Martin saying it:
Australia expects first HIMARS deliveries in early 2025 - Asian Military Review
Lockheed Martin confirmed the first batch of M142 HIMARS rocket launchers will land in Australia in the first quarter of 2025, ahead of schedule.
www.asianmilitaryreview.com
Yet our local defence media still seems to be attempting to grasp whether we are buying 42x or not...
As long as the networking and BMS were compatible, I don't see why not? The Typhon would have to be integrated into the IADS setup, but as it is primarily just a launch platform, I can't really see any issue...
Would the missile care whether it is launched from land or sea, or is it just going to guide in on the target data provided to it, once launched?
Takao
The Bunker Group
When pitched a 20 week training period for a rifleman from IET to Bn, my infantry brethren (officers, SNCO and WO) reset that to 11 weeks. So yes, while any trade needs experience, and any JNCO+ needs experience, generating rifleman mass is easy. To generate the infantry you need for a Bde you need two ARA Bn - and coincidently the amount of enablers we have only allows for a Bde to deploy (even then I question the RAE or RAA assets). Assume the enablers magically appear, the follow on Bde needs two Inf Bn just like the first. You get that by splitting the 3rd ARA Bn in half, promoting everyone a rank to generate the JCNO+ and than back fill with 11 week graduates. Note that the second Bde is theoretically given at least 6 months notice there is plenty of time to raise those forces and even give training to ATL4 or so.
All of this means that the ARA only needs 3 Bn. And a solid mobilisation plan. But the latter isn't a RAInf responsibility - it's actually essential noting the paucity of enablers.
By a combined arms team. The bedrock upon with which we fight is combined arms, hence the enablers. Even then, what protection is a Bty of HiMARS getting? It'll get a BG at best if operating independently. Meaning that the ARA Bde can support 3x Bty....which is what a Bde can produce. So again, you only need two ARA Bn. If the HiMARS is operating in this hypothetical land-shoot-scoot move using C-130s and the like, it doesn't even need to force protection, meaning in turn less ARA infantry.
And it remains the unique attribute of the infantry. I'm not arguing to remove infantry - there will always be a need for some poor bloody rifleman to stand somewhere and say "this is Australia's". But, in the modern and future world, the infantry can only do this with it's combined arms enablers. It needs tanks, IFVs, artillery, engineer support, comms support and logistics. Some air power, some NGFS, some space-y stuff and some cyber-y stuff too will be welcome. Without that stuff, the infantry just dies. Which is my point - at the moment the ARA doesn't have enough enablers. So why hold more infantry than we can use, instead of the stuff that takes longer to raise and coincidently saves the lives of the infantry we keep?
Two things - it highlights that for low intensity stuff we can draw on other elements to provide an infantry effect - so we don't need extra ARA. And secondly, it highlights the need for a robust mobilisation plan. I don't know why infantry IETs were not accelerated in 1999, I imagine it's because as soon as the Indonesian's stepped back it was clear we could do INTERFET with what we had and didn't need to. If we rapidly needed artillery and engineers, then the mobilisation plan will give us ARes (was Ready Reserve a thing in 1999?) or, given enough warning, an accelerated IET pipeline.
Truckies. Specifically ECN274 - Driver. Cull the course down to what's needed and you'd be looking at 2-3 week IETs. And really, noting how many other Corps are expected to drive heavy vehicles (thinking RAEME, RAAOC, RAE and RASigs especially), I think there is valid reason for asking why RACT still exists when the majority of the Corps is 274. Fundamentally, driving vehicles isn't hard - except we (the Royal we) allow the School of Trucks to make it so (remember, to drive a G-Wagon is 5 days!).
100% behind you. I've argued against Army owned AShM for years. Strikemaster undermines it even more - now with missiles that cannot reach the edge of the EEZ and cannot fit on a C-130! Yay! And undermines what we've been arguing about the long in long-range strike.
And upon which so many problems can be placed. Light infantry was excellent as an Army wide specialisation right up until 1914.
The third major strike against Strikemaster is exactly this. A long range strike launcher that can take SM-6 (like Typhon or Mk 70 VLS) can tie in with the integrated force so much better. Now an Air Defence commander can chose to (for instance) use HMAS Brisbane's SM-6 or 16 Regt's. It allows flexibility at the operational level, some tactical complication to the red commander and options. It complicates tactical log a little, but long range strike is already a bastards, so in the end it's not that much.
Has the Australian army got anything in the pipe for drone defence? Rheinmetall to begin Skyranger 30 deliveries to strengthen European air defense capabilities
There was this around an approach to market - Defence outlines C-UAS plans - Australian Defence Magazine
Personally I think they are moving way to slowly on this area. An approach to market in 2024, Tender in 2025 with a minimum viable capability in 2032 puts the capability into service 10 years after it was shown to be severely lacking by the war in Ukraine.
More Hawkeis hopefully. That line shouldn’t ever stop. They should be a central part of any mass mobilisation plan.
Build extras, put them in a nice shed, hope you never need them.
Gee....imagine an Army of 30,000 with another 20,000+ reserves that has trouble scrambling a brigade + at short notice?
Imagine, an Army that has almost no air defence, or anti drone capability or even a plan, and has no armed drones, Imagine an Army that size that, in one of the richest countries in the world that has a mobilisation plan, but no equipment to expand rapidly, Imagine that...
For comparison, the Brits have a regular army of 74,000.
They have 33 Infantry battalions.
If we half that and take away 7000, that's us.
You could safely say we should have around 12 battalions. And plenty of supporting arms.
I would be ok with 8 or 9.
Then we could sustain 3 brigade sized battle groups, if we could equip them properly.
Last edited:
As for the HIMARs fly in a C130 and shoot and scoot tactic....really? This scenario is so far fetched and unlikely to ever happen.
If you were to a fly a C130 into an airstrip, that just happend to be close enough to engage the enemy, why wouldn't you just send an F18, F35, or an Apache?
Perhaps hit the target with tomahawks from a naval asset, why risk a C130 and a Himars?
I am seriously worried about the state and role of the Army, as are the many good people I meet who are discharging and joining civvy jobs.
Wonder why there is recruitment problem? ask the people who are leaving.
If you were to a fly a C130 into an airstrip, that just happend to be close enough to engage the enemy, why wouldn't you just send an F18, F35, or an Apache?
Perhaps hit the target with tomahawks from a naval asset, why risk a C130 and a Himars?
I am seriously worried about the state and role of the Army, as are the many good people I meet who are discharging and joining civvy jobs.
Wonder why there is recruitment problem? ask the people who are leaving.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
New video about the use of Bushmaster in Ukraine or should I say Russia!
Interesting that they load 15 or more Infantry at times.
Interesting that they load 15 or more Infantry at times.
I idsagree. The initial capability to be deployed is required to be delivered by December 2025.
What? HIMARS is being delivered in early (1st quarter) 2025.
Even if we chose Strikemaster or more HIMARS tomorrow, this is for the ‘additional’ long range fires Regiment, which doesn’t even yet exist.
Not much of a point trying to introduce a platform with no personnel or unit from which to operate said capability…
14 Regiment RRAA is established and will deploy HIMARS within literal weeks from today, Not sure how much faster anyone thinks they can be deployed from when the capability was finally approved by Government...
You are missing the point. A brigade is much more than the number of infantry battalions it nominally has.
The point is - the more you invest in infantry, the less there is left to invest in all of the capabilities said brigade needs…
You aren’t deploying a C-130 and Strikemaster (or HIMARS) ‘close’ to an enemy. That’s why the Strikemaster has a missile with a ‘beyond’ 250k range and HIMARS even further…
250km IS close to the enemy today.
Any airfield that close to your position will be under the microscope, or even destroyed by the bodies.
Even as far back as diamond dollar in 1987, the airfields close to the town of Coen were under surveillance.
I have had DZ briefs where the old RF111 s provided images of enemy SF on nearly every airfield. That's why DZs are never on or even near an objective.
Do you really believe that Himars would be used in the shoot and scoot scenario? Really?
Any airfield that close to your position will be under the microscope, or even destroyed by the bodies.
Even as far back as diamond dollar in 1987, the airfields close to the town of Coen were under surveillance.
I have had DZ briefs where the old RF111 s provided images of enemy SF on nearly every airfield. That's why DZs are never on or even near an objective.
Do you really believe that Himars would be used in the shoot and scoot scenario? Really?
I do, so do the Australian and US Armies and so does the USMC.
We have even already exercised such.
U.S. Marines, soldiers, and airmen conduct HIMARS rapid infiltration in Australia
U.S. Forces conduct High Mobility Artillery Rocket System Rapid Infiltration training in Queensland Australia, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 19, July 6, 2019.The U.S. and Australian bi-lateral
www.marines.mil
I'm thinking fly them to the nearest safe airport and then drive to where ever you need. They have a decent fuel tank.
I can't see these being used off the Kimberley coast (can't see the point or need), but you could move these through the Indonesian, PNG or Phillipine islands as an area denial system.
20 of these in the field with a 250km radius puts a lot of maritime zones at risk. At minimum this would cause an enemy to reroute, or stay away from a shoreline that you need for another purpose. They could cover the key straits and be very effective at preventing any surface vessel access to regions.
Two missiles (regardless of system) is not much of a threat by itself to any capable warship, so I assume these things will need to operate in groups, say four or eight, to have enough weapons to overwhelm a ship's defences. And they will need some form of force protection. Plus a missile reload truck or two. Plus a tanker.
So it is not so much a lone shooter type concept.
Can't see it being a viable tactic to be honest.I do, so do the Australian and US Armies and so does the USMC.
We have even already exercised such.
U.S. Marines, soldiers, and airmen conduct HIMARS rapid infiltration in Australia
U.S. Forces conduct High Mobility Artillery Rocket System Rapid Infiltration training in Queensland Australia, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 19, July 6, 2019.The U.S. and Australian bi-lateralwww.marines.mil
Why not just strike a target with an F18 instead.
Because we have 24 of them, 18 of which are combat coded and they can’t be everywhere. You could make the same argument for any artillery capability and it’s the same answer. Land forces need their own strike capabilities because the higher end assets won’t always be there.