Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Honestly everyone.. I would think that any tracked or wheeled motor or frankly and variant of any loins needed in the future will come from the redback or or Boxer.. which have factories set up to build these vehicles and will need extra orders to keep them going… defence is a business it needs orders! If the government doesn’t want to spend the dollars use the M113

it will be interesting as to what the structure of the Battalions look like that use the new Boxer and Redback vehicles
I assume it will not be a one for one replacement of the old M113
Information that two larger Sqns of MBTs will replace 3 old sqns suggests change ahead .
So what’s is the driver?.

Sqns and their vehicle composition based on platform numbers purchased , or doctrine for the way we want to do business ?????

Agree existing numbers of units in production can be increased and that it probably makes sense utilising this commonality before introducing another vehicle type.

With production lines for Bushmaster, Hawkei, Boxer , Redback and Huntman we have a broad range of vehicles to be form the base of existing and future desired capability’s.

In this election year I’d not be surprised that some vehicle numbers are added .

Realistically there is a good argument to say Army is shy in vehicle numbers in a
number of areas.
Lets see what the year ahead brings

Cheers S

 

[StevoJH]

I would have thought the ideal would have been 1x -Armoured Regiment, 1x Reconnaissance Regiment and 2x Armoured infantry battalions per Brigade plus supporting elements and possibly a motorised infantry battalion.

If each brigade had that, you could generate 3 identical armoured battle groups from each brigade. Plus a motorised battalion (bushmaster) for line of communication or reserve.

Cascade Bushmasters down to the reserve level to give each reserve battalion at least the skeleton of a motorised infantry battalion.

Air defense and HIMARS assets (if divisional level assets) could also be assets that could be primarily at the reserve level.

 

[ADMk2]

I would have thought the ideal would have been 1x -Armoured Regiment, 1x Reconnaissance Regiment and 2x Armoured infantry battalions per Brigade plus supporting elements and possibly a motorised infantry battalion.

If each brigade had that, you could generate 3 identical armoured battle groups from each brigade. Plus a motorised battalion (bushmaster) for line of communication or reserve.

Cascade Bushmasters down to the reserve level to give each reserve battalion at least the skeleton of a motorised infantry battalion.

Air defense and HIMARS assets (if divisional level assets) could also be assets that could be primarily at the reserve level.

2DIV units already have Bushmaster and Hawkei on issue, they were provisioned for within the initial projects. There is no need to ‘cascade’ these vehicles.

HIMARS and AD have been allocated to a dedicated fires brigade and no, they are not suitable for “reserve” forces. They have the same readiness requirements that other 1DIV units hold.

 

[Morgo]

2DIV units already have Bushmaster and Hawkei on issue, they were provisioned for within the initial projects. There is no need to ‘cascade’ these vehicles.

HIMARS and AD have been allocated to a dedicated fires brigade and no, they are not suitable for “reserve” forces. They have the same readiness requirements that other 1DIV units hold.

Air Defence in particular seems like something you would want to be practicing full time…

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I would have thought the ideal would have been 1x -Armoured Regiment, 1x Reconnaissance Regiment and 2x Armoured infantry battalions per Brigade plus supporting elements and possibly a motorised infantry battalion.

That's the ideal if you're fighting in Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. For the Asia-Pacific, we need more readily deployable forces. That means more mixed forces either within brigades or in totality.

Even looking at the original plan for Land 400 Phase 3, it was only going to see three armoured infantry battalions, with a then expectation there would be one per brigade, while similarly each brigade would have a mixed armoured cavalry regiment with Boxers and Abrams.

You can make an argument for more armour, but not to the extent of every regular brigade being akin to an armoured brigade. That wouldn't deliver us a balanced, flexible force, as well as costing way too much.

 

[MickB]

That's the ideal if you're fighting in Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. For the Asia-Pacific, we need more readily deployable forces. That means more mixed forces either within brigades or in totality.

You can make an argument for more armour, but not to the extent of every regular brigade being akin to an armoured brigade. That wouldn't deliver us a balanced, flexible force, as well as costing way too much.

Would like to see 4 brigades, 2 mec and 2 motorised.
The 2 mec having the armour, cav, ifv and spg etc
1 motorised concentrating on litoral skills and 1 concentrating in air assult skills with supporting vechicles and systems as requierd.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Would like to see 4 brigades, 2 mec and 2 motorised.
The 2 mec having the armour, cav, ifv and spg etc
1 motorised concentrating on litoral skills and 1 concentrating in air assult skills with supporting vechicles and systems as requierd.

Agree in principle, but where are we going to get the money and the manpower? What do we do without? Either in defence or elsewhere in the budget? We struggle to man the units we have.

 

[seaspear]

I saw this thread on an automatic mortar system from Russia that even the U.S had trialed and wondered if such a a mortar could be developed for the A.D.F firing from a specialised vehicle

 

[old faithful]

Agree in principle, but where are we going to get the money and the manpower? What do we do without? Either in defence or elsewhere in the budget? We struggle to man the units we have.

Why do we struggle to man the units we have?

I have not seen any advertising for recruitment of late.
I know of quite a few suitable young men who have applied, waited....waited for more, got a job elsewhere while waiting, then told later that there are no positions available or that they are not recruiting for infantry and on two occasions told that they were only recruiting females for the positions they applied for.
If the will was there to recruit, really there, they could fill the positions.

 

[Bob53]

Why do we struggle to man the units we have?

I have not seen any advertising for recruitment of late.
I know of quite a few suitable young men who have applied, waited....waited for more, got a job elsewhere while waiting, then told later that there are no positions available or that they are not recruiting for infantry and on two occasions told that they were only recruiting females for the positions they applied for.
If the will was there to recruit, really there, they could fill the positions.

Time to kill off DEI in the ADF.