Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bob53]

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.

Equally how many c130s do we have? How many HIMARS? strike package Option as mentioned by old faithful involves say 2-4 strike aircraft ( plus possible refueling ) who can launch from over 500km from the target and exit quickly. hIMARS option involves several slow moving aircraft and vehicles who need to land and take off again. And while doing that somehow fast enough avoid counter strike. Fraught with danger.

Sure having HIMARS in an area denial role would work but the FIFO thing stinks to me. It’s like someone just had to come up with a mission to keep the US marines relevant in a pacific war when they are basically without a valid mission. Said war would be conducted by airforce and navy.

 

[SammyC]

The vehicle is, the munitions are not. HIMARS doesn’t exclusively fire PRsM, it has the useful and much cheaper GMLRS and ER-GMLRS (coming) to employ as well.

But Strikemaster only has NSM which is going to be as expensive as PRsM snd seemingly less useful outside the short-ranged ship killing role.

First up land warfare is not my strength or natural environment (I prefer it when it rocks and rolls), so excuse me wading in on an army topic. If I slip and fall help me up.

I get that a travelling littoral land force may need to defend against a Naval attack such as shore bombardments or hostile amphibious landings. There will not always be a frigate or an aircraft around around to provide this protection. Shore based strike missiles can do this, or at least make it difficult for ships to get close to the shore.

I also get the flexibility and mobility of the HIMARS platform, and the really good range of the developing PrSM family. It is however a ballistic missile and there are weaknesses with this technology (it can be seen a million miles away, especially at sea).

The NSM is a cruise missile, with stealth, manoeuvrability and a good brain. It also has weaknesses, but they are different to the PrSM (it's slow and shorter ranged).

I would have thought there is a place for both, and as we will have 42 HIMARS we don't loose access to PrSM regardless of the selection for the second regiment.

The Navy, I will note, picked the NSM as its anti ship strike weapon for at least the next couple of decades, despite its range. There is however no conversation (that I know of, and I'm not counting SM6/TLAM as a ship strike missile) of integrating PrSM (or an equivalent) to ships despite the better range. So if range is the be all and end all for hitting a ship, the Navy don't seem to have received that memo. And its not as if a large frigate can creep up on an enemy, unnoticed.

I don't see why the Navy have nailed their colours to the NSM mast, and the army would have the opposite view, when both will be operating in the littoral environment.

All that aside, I do believe PrSM would fit in a Mk41 VLS...

 

[Bob53]

As I mentioned - F18 yes but not the F/A-18F. There is a difference.

Being a bit pedantic. It wasn’t much of a stretch to understand what he meant.

 

[Bob53]

Persistence. Something fast jets and MPA’s don’t and never will have.

I don’t think the thrust of the argument is about not having the HIMARS capability and being able to deploy outside of Australia. I think the concept of FIFO a thousand or more KMS from Australia with C130 and shoot and Scoot is the concern for a range of reasons.

 

[Aardvark144]

Being a bit pedantic. It wasn’t much of a stretch to understand what he meant.

This site has some well researched and very accurate info. I have greatly enjoyed the material put forward and discussed; however, calling a Super Hornet an F-18 is no different than the routine broadsheet media accuracy.

 

[Bob53]

This site has some well researched and very accurate info. I have greatly enjoyed the material put forward and discussed; however, calling a Super Hornet an F-18 is no different than the routine broadsheet media accuracy.

Not really any different that call a C-130J-30 a C130.

 

[old faithful]

Thinking on it the fires brigade is going to need cavalry, isr, and air defence/missile defence more than infantry.

Depending of the system selected air defence could be either a separate capability, with its own platforms, added to the strike capability, or it could be integrated into the strike capability. NSM is a stand alone single purpose capability, HIMAS is an expanding multirole capability, and Typhon appears to have even more potential.

The key will be getting in, securing the area, and setting up defence against air and missile attack if they are located. I doubt even SOF will be a real threat, it will be air and missile attack that are the more likely response.

I can also envisage SOF conducting deception operations, deploying to islands and setting up dummy missile sites.

I will bow out of this after this comment.

If I were the baddie.

There is a choke point formed. There are land based anti ship missiles protected by SAMs, Isr
Cav etc, no real body of troops patrolling area, however there is areial surveillance.
I insert a 4 or 5 man team via subs, and their mission is to observe the choke point and monitor their habits before striking them when ordered to do so. It could be days weeks or months away. The longer the force is there without incident, the more complaciant they become.
A couple of javelins launched at the assets provided and job done.

I am not talking about the shoot and scoot tactics of himars, some bought up the point we only have 18 F18Fs available....ok, but we also will have 18 plus Apache's, and over 50 F35s as well....compared to (atm) 12 C130s soon to be a total of 20.

 

[Armchair]

Lets pause and consider that though.

All the territory to our north where 250km is useful belongs to someone else. Indonesia is highly likely to strive for neutrality; Singapore and Malaysia (while FPDA) have serious risk in supporting kinetic actions against Beijing; and the Philippines have it's own capabilities and triggers to engage the PLAN. Plus significant (likely) US support. So just where are our Strikemasters going to be?

If it's in an environment where air parity or worse exists, now you have to commit a SAM Bty. And boost up your protection. Now you are probably lifting a BG(+) - which rules out air transport and needs the amphibs. Which are - especially for the LSTs and mediums - slow and very poorly armed or defended. Meaning they are a sucker target for the PLAN or PLAAF. In fact, if it's too hazardous to operate a major fleet unit - what hope have the landing craft?

If I want a NSM Bty that can actually range threats, I have them already. On self-deploying, defensible and flexible platforms. At least 10 - with possibly more for the new FFG and Hunters.

On top of all that, if it's for Defence of Australia (urgh) and won't deploy forward, what's it going to do? The RAN and RAAF (and HiMARS) will be engaged with the PLAN well before they hit our EEZ (noting that Strikemaster cannot reach our EEZ edge). If enough escorts get through all that to continue to assault, what will Strikemaster do? And if enough escorts or ancillaries don't - they'll turn back.

HiMARS has the advantage of range (although access, basing and overflight is still the grand unanswered question), usefulness (it can shoot more than one type of missile), flexibility, and already exists in production. It's even to the point where there are uncrewed HiMARS launcher options, making the risk to our personnel even lower. Army needs a long range strike option. It just needs to be long range and it needs to do multiple missions. Strikemaster fails both. I've always thought that Army having AShM (especially while lacking in so many other areas core to a Land Force) was... not clever. At least with HiMARS it's an addition that doesn't really undermine the (increasingly restricted) resourcing of the force. Strikemaster doesn't add anything.

If NSM is being proposed for defence of Australia then it is the wrong system ( because of the air-sea gap). I am not sure that the RAN agrees that it will have 10 defensible launch platforms for NSM that can operate in high threat littoral environments (any time in the next decade).

I agree the strategy is worth debating but if the plan is to plonk battle groups on islands in the northern approaches then those battle groups should have the capacity to hold naval targets at risk and NSM looks like the available solution now.

 

[StevoJH]

If NSM is being proposed for defence of Australia then it is the wrong system ( because of the air-sea gap). I am not sure that the RAN agrees that it will have 10 defensible launch platforms for NSM that can operate in high threat littoral environments (any time in the next decade).

I agree the strategy is worth debating but if the plan is to plonk battle groups on islands in the northern approaches then those battle groups should have the capacity to hold naval targets at risk and NSM looks like the available solution now.

Sure, but the BG+ is going to probably need a NASAM’s battery attached for self defence because the enemy forces are likely to have land attack missiles that outrange NSM.

And in 2030 or so, how large of a salvo of NSM is going to be required to pose a credible threat?

How many of these outposts can the ADF actually support and is the rest of the Army going to be completely stripped of supporting elements to do so?

The whole strategy seems questionable, and requires co-operation from neighbouring countries that may wish to remain neutral in any conflict.

 

[Stampede]

Sure, but the BG+ is going to probably need a NASAM’s battery attached for self defence because the enemy forces are likely to have land attack missiles that outrange NSM.

And in 2030 or so, how large of a salvo of NSM is going to be required to pose a credible threat?

How many of these outposts can the ADF actually support and is the rest of the Army going to be completely stripped of supporting elements to do so?

The whole strategy seems questionable, and requires co-operation from neighbouring countries that may wish to remain neutral in any conflict.

NASAMs is somewhat like land based NSM,,why do we need it when we have a Airforce with much greater reach.

Why because these are complimentary assets.
They are an extra layer and provide persistence .

Some may argue they would prefer money on additional aviation
Always a good argument

That said we have not gone down that path and are acquiring respectable SAM and Land based modern mobile SSM capabilities.
For right or wrong this is what the ADF wants and is acquiring going forward.

So are we going to parachute a Strikemaster to some remote Atol with a small crew complete with a month of rat packs
No

Most likely as we switch rapidly to a littoral force , the mobile NSM will go with and where the battalion / Brigade deploys.

That would be my take along with it been a domestic mobile coastal force.

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

I will bow out of this after this comment.

If I were the baddie.

There is a choke point formed. There are land based anti ship missiles protected by SAMs, Isr
Cav etc, no real body of troops patrolling area, however there is areial surveillance.
I insert a 4 or 5 man team via subs, and their mission is to observe the choke point and monitor their habits before striking them when ordered to do so. It could be days weeks or months away. The longer the force is there without incident, the more complaciant they become.
A couple of javelins launched at the assets provided and job done.

I am not talking about the shoot and scoot tactics of himars, some bought up the point we only have 18 F18Fs available....ok, but we also will have 18 plus Apache's, and over 50 F35s as well....compared to (atm) 12 C130s soon to be a total of 20.

I was actually thinking back to the VAP (vital assets protection) role of the 90s. Exactly the scenario you outlined. Over and over it was check points, OPs, cav and motor/mech infantry that proved most effective against that particular threat.

Many exercises saw cav being pulled out for a period of time to allow other arms to practice their skills.

 

[Volkodav]

If NSM is being proposed for defence of Australia then it is the wrong system ( because of the air-sea gap). I am not sure that the RAN agrees that it will have 10 defensible launch platforms for NSM that can operate in high threat littoral environments (any time in the next decade).

I agree the strategy is worth debating but if the plan is to plonk battle groups on islands in the northern approaches then those battle groups should have the capacity to hold naval targets at risk and NSM looks like the available solution now.

Going forward, many, and later, all of these platforms will be capable of deploying SM-6 and Tomahawk in addition to NSM (the finalists for Sea3000 appear to have strike length Mk-41 optioned).

NSM is a very capable extra capability for highly mobile, highly defended platforms.

 

[Stampede]

Going forward, many, and later, all of these platforms will be capable of deploying SM-6 and Tomahawk in addition to NSM (the finalists for Sea3000 appear to have strike length Mk-41 optioned).

NSM is a very capable extra capability for highly mobile, highly defended platforms.

NSM is available today.
Let’s not underestimate time in the equation.
NSM will no doubt get some longer ranged friends.
That said all this stuff costs money

Long range stuff is big dollars


Choices and trade offs

Cheers S

 

[MickB]

NSM is available today.
Let’s not underestimate time in the equation.
NSM will no doubt get some longer ranged friends.
That said all this stuff costs money

Long range stuff is big dollars


Choices and trade offs

Cheers S

Not only available today but also built in Aust.
Stand up a second rgt when manpower available, gain skills and experience.

Then when something with longer range and bigger bang comes along roll the strikemasters down to the reserves.
A good weapon for them, low maintaience and a lot of training can be done on simulators

 

[ADMk2]

First up land warfare is not my strength or natural environment (I prefer it when it rocks and rolls), so excuse me wading in on an army topic. If I slip and fall help me up.

I get that a travelling littoral land force may need to defend against a Naval attack such as shore bombardments or hostile amphibious landings. There will not always be a frigate or an aircraft around around to provide this protection. Shore based strike missiles can do this, or at least make it difficult for ships to get close to the shore.

I also get the flexibility and mobility of the HIMARS platform, and the really good range of the developing PrSM family. It is however a ballistic missile and there are weaknesses with this technology (it can be seen a million miles away, especially at sea).

The NSM is a cruise missile, with stealth, manoeuvrability and a good brain. It also has weaknesses, but they are different to the PrSM (it's slow and shorter ranged).

I would have thought there is a place for both, and as we will have 42 HIMARS we don't loose access to PrSM regardless of the selection for the second regiment.

The Navy, I will note, picked the NSM as its anti ship strike weapon for at least the next couple of decades, despite its range. There is however no conversation (that I know of, and I'm not counting SM6/TLAM as a ship strike missile) of integrating PrSM (or an equivalent) to ships despite the better range. So if range is the be all and end all for hitting a ship, the Navy don't seem to have received that memo. And its not as if a large frigate can creep up on an enemy, unnoticed.

I don't see why the Navy have nailed their colours to the NSM mast, and the army would have the opposite view, when both will be operating in the littoral environment.

All that aside, I do believe PrSM would fit in a Mk41 VLS...

The Navy also almost exclusively picks major weapon systems operated by the USN, with MU-90 being the sole major weapon system we chose that isn't used by the USN. It chooses weapons to fill a capability set and it chooses more often than not off the shelf. When was the last time the Navy invested in a developmental weapon? Mk.48 ADCAP, 25 years ago maybe? NSM for RAN is about killing ships and "maybe" some point coastal targets.

Accordingly I don't doubt the capability of the NSM in the ship-killing role and this is for a land based anti-ship capability after all. But compared to HIMARS and the range of munitions available to it, a dedicated NSM launcher is relatively inflexible. A HIMARS troop might be deployed operationally primarily to conduct anti-shipping strikes in a particular scenario, but could also easily pivot to providing it's usual land strike or area target capability, something which the Strikemaster is all but useless at. Yes NSM has a secondary capability against land targets but it doesn't provide high volume rocket artillery firepower under any circumstance and it's ability to strike area targets is non-existent.

Any land deployed strike capability may well find itself under attack via multi-domain operations while a ship has fewer problems to address in that respect and it's weapon systems don't need to be capable of addressing (for example) substantial land based forces.

In any event I am sure Army are considering all these points with SME's providing their input. Time will tell.

 

[ADMk2]

I don’t think the thrust of the argument is about not having the HIMARS capability and being able to deploy outside of Australia. I think the concept of FIFO a thousand or more KMS from Australia with C130 and shoot and Scoot is the concern for a range of reasons.

And yet we are exercising this capability on major exercises with the USMC and US Army so we are not the only ones who think the idea has actual merit.

 

[Bob53]

And yet we are exercising this capability on major exercises with the USMC and US Army so we are not the only ones who think the idea has actual merit.

I know the USMC is planning the shoot and scoot concept but wasn’t aware the army was. They are buying Typhon which I’m sot sure works for that role.

 

[old faithful]

And yet we are exercising this capability on major exercises with the USMC and US Army so we are not the only ones who think the idea has actual merit.

We have also conducted multiple exercises of other niche capabilities, and not followed through.
I'm not saying it can't or won't ever be done, but the FIFO capability is one that is less likely to be employed as a regular capability. It's very much a niche capability, using valuable assets in risky way. A bit like airborne operations. Sure, practice it, do it, know how to do it, but employ it? Maybe, but unlikely.

 

[discodave]

To answer the question, "what range would a land based anti-ship missile need to hold at-risk choke points in SE Asia", from Google Maps, I came up with:

Tiwi Islands (near Darwin) to Timor-Leste is ~500km, so with a NSM battery (250km reported range) on each side, you could prevent vessels transiting the Timor Sea. Of course, Timor-Leste is not Australian territory, but it was only 20 years ago that the ADF was deployed there on a peacekeeping mission.

The Malacca, Lombok, Sunda, and Ombai straits are all <100km across.

So by my count, you could hold at risk all the choke points between the Indian and Pacific oceans with 6 NSM batteries.

 

[spoz]

To answer the question, "what range would a land based anti-ship missile need to hold at-risk choke points in SE Asia", from Google Maps, I came up with:

Tiwi Islands (near Darwin) to Timor-Leste is ~500km, so with a NSM battery (250km reported range) on each side, you could prevent vessels transiting the Timor Sea. Of course, Timor-Leste is not Australian territory, but it was only 20 years ago that the ADF was deployed there on a peacekeeping mission.

The Malacca, Lombok, Sunda, and Ombai straits are all <100km across.

So by my count, you could hold at risk all the choke points between the Indian and Pacific oceans with 6 NSM batteries.

IF you have access to Indonesian territory, which should not be assumed to be a given. And that would give you no redundancy, should the other side interdict you.