Australian Army to increase by 2,600
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Why not, the Government has provided an additional $10b in funding to allow these 2 new battalions to be established. That's an AWFUL lot of "wedge" considering that no actual extra "major" equipment will be needed for the battalions themselves. Sufficient M113AS3/4's exist to equip the mech battalion and sufficient kit would exist to equip the "light infantry" battalion.The_Jet said:
Unfortunately if an extra tank squadron is NOT raised within 1 Brigade, then again it will be un-balanced with either 1 of the battalions or the Cav Regt missing out on it's tank sqn support. They ARE intending to raise an additional artillery battery within 8/12 Mdm Regt to support the new battalion.
I'll be surprised if we DON'T see another Sqn's worth of Abrams purchased...
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
More..
I would be suprised if the majority if not all major Army system recieves eventual additions in numbers. Abrams, Tigers, Chinooks, Bushmasters, hopefully more ASLAVS or similar, this is of course reliant on continued upward spending and upward responsibilities.Aussie Digger said:
Don't get me wrong I would love another squadron of Abrams but I just can't see the govenment giving them more after all the bad press saying it was a bad buy and they will never be used and stuff like that!Aussie Digger said:
I would like to see (I'm not holding my breath) the M113's replaced with M2 Bradleys
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given the increase of two battalions and that the Armoued Regt was being reduced to two sqd following the purchase of the Abrams, I does make sense to add an Armoured Sqd back onto the Order of Battle. Especially if one considers operational deployments of US Abrams and the tank forces of other nations. France & Germany are both coming up with modification packages for their MBTs to assist in Urban Warfare. While yes, I doubt that Aussie Abrams will engage in tank battles like in WWII or the various Arab-Israeli wars, the tanks could find themselves patrolling crowded urban environments where the armour on ASLAV-type vehicles has been found to be insufficient.The_Jet said:
My personal preference for an IFV would be a CV9040, especially if an ATGM launcher could be added to the turret. The Bradley is ok, but I don't really like the 25mm Bushmaster or the TOW II.
Would the Government buy more Tigers? with all the problems with staffing them and the report by the Audit Office critising the performance of the Helicopters?robsta83 said:
A web site about the problems with the Tigers
http://australiandefencereport.com.au/Royal-Australian-Navy/new_defence_helicopters_unsafe.htm
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
More tigers
This says it all for me:
"A spokesman for Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the deficiencies are being rectified by the contractor at no cost"
Staffing issue aside as important as it is, the number purchased is obviously a minimum requirment, Australia has a Eurocopter production line, and about the time the MHR90's are complete the funds should be available, I don't believe anyone could say 22 copters is enough for a Army of 30,000 espescially when you consider at least 4 will be for training. In terms of issues there seem to be no absolutes problems that would preclude the further purchase of the Tigers.The_Jet said:
This says it all for me:
"A spokesman for Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the deficiencies are being rectified by the contractor at no cost"
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I doubt very much at ALL that Army or the defence capability investment committee headed by Lt. Gen HURLEY (which got the capability passed by Government) could care less what the Press or "experts" like Hugh White or Carlo Kopp think about heavy armour. Army justified the acquisition of a new tank capability, sufficiently to Government to have $550m spent on a capability the White Paper stated explicitly that we would NOT develop, ie: heavy armour.The_Jet said:
If a new Regiment's worth of M1 Abrams tanks, an additional mechanised infantry battalion, new tracked self-propelled artillery systems (K-9 Thunder is almost a dead certainty for the SPG component of Land 17) and new armoured bulldozers is not "developing heavy armoured forces" than I simply do not know what is.
Given the Army has convinced Government of the need for a certain level of capability (ie: 59 tanks) and Government has not only agreed to this, but has now since come along and stated they intend to increase the existing directed level of capability and funded it to such a generous level ($10 BILLION dollars thank you very much).
I find it difficult to understand why they would NOT "balance" the force and acquire the extra 20 or so Abrams needed to do so, particularly when that number would cost no more than 1/3rd of the initial acquisition cost... What's another $150m or so when you've announced $10b in new funding???
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Any info on an IFV buy? When I googled Land 400 the info came up about the M1A1 AIM tanks, no mention of IFV. What I see right now as a deficiency
in the ADF is the lack of light armoured support for infantry. Something were a smaller caliber (than 120mm) gun is needed but in areas requiring armour heavier than that which stops 7.62mm AP.
in the ADF is the lack of light armoured support for infantry. Something were a smaller caliber (than 120mm) gun is needed but in areas requiring armour heavier than that which stops 7.62mm AP.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Land 400 is the "overarching" replacement armoured vehicle program DMO will start up when our current armoured vehicle fleets need replacement. M1A1's will provide the "heavy" tank component of the project.Todjaeger said:
The next phase will reputedly be to upgrade or replace the ASLAV capability as the M113AS3/4's will barely be in-service before Land 400 kicks off. In my opinion they should dump the M113AS3/4 and move to acquire the new tracked IFV straight away.
Ever increasing problems keep cropping up with the vehicle and even if Tenix and DMO DO get it right, it is still a very poor imitation of a decent fighting vehicle at the same or greater price than many MUCH more capable vehicles... Guess keeping Tenix propped up is more important than the safety of our Digs and effectiveness of our armoured forces eh? No matter how long it takes or how much it costs...
As to the M1A1 issue, I think any extra ones would be based in Darwin where the support facilities would be established and freighted to Adelaide (by rail) for exercises as necessary. On top of this, if we were ever to deploy them they'd most likely leave from Darwin so it makes sense to base them there to start with...
I agree that a heavier direct fire support capability is needed for Australian infantry and there are plans to address this. the Army officialdom is still "toeing the Government line" that the 12.7mm machine gun on the M113AS3/4 upgraded vehicles is sufficient but there is an increasing push within Army itself to investigate options for greater firepower using the same vehicle. Options have included fitting a 25mm gun to a new remote weapon station based turret or a new "single operator" turret with different gun options. So far DMO and Army leadership have refused to officially consider this option, but it may happen with the funding being given to Army in particular at the moment...
I don't see a real need for a 105mm gun or similar on a wheeled armoured vehicle for Australia. I'd much prefer an armoured 120mm mortar system to support our Cavalry Regiments or the NLOS-LS for our Artillery Regiments than a new direct fire armoured vehicle. As with current plans our direct fire capability will be pretty sweet in my opinion, but our in-direct fire assets could certainly do with some bolstering...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #112
If I remember correctly, one of your previous posts lists a sq of M1s to consist of 18 M1s, so to add another sq and keep it within NATO lines, you would probably only need 10 more M1s and have 3 x sq of 14 M1s each.Aussie Digger said:
That would leave the brigade with 12 coy/sq level elemnts to build a task force/battle group on.
I have to agree with the rest of the comments the sooner the M113s are replaced the better IMHO.
Article on News website by Paul Dibb, a former deputy secretary of Defence, is emeritus professor at the Australian National University, concerning Recruitment problems, quite interesting, some snippets:
There are at least three reasons. The first relates to the state of the Australian economy, which has been in a prolonged boom for well over a decade. Traditionally, the ADF has enjoyed better recruitment rates when the economy has been in recession. We have a generation of young Australians who have known nothing else but the good times: a tight job market, low interest rates and good housing affordability.
Generation Y is notorious for not being interested in a career for life, which is what the ADF has been built on in the past. Falling birthrates and limited immigration prospects offer no short-term recruitment solutions for the ADF either.
The second reason concerns the overly narrow focus of the ADF's recruitment cohort. The fact is that the ADF is not entirely representative of contemporary Australian society. It is still typically Anglo-Celtic and male. It has tried to be more attractive to female recruits, but recent well-publicised cases of sexual harassment have not done its reputation much good in the wider community.
The question also needs to be asked: why do Australians from other than Anglo-Celtic backgrounds not find the ADF more attractive? Is this a case of real or perceived discrimination, or are there other reasons? Just why is Australia's experience in this regard so different from that of the US, which has relatively large numbers of African and Latino Americans in its armed forces?
And what's wrong with a couple of other ideas, such as recruiting officers laterally into the ADF from relevant specialised civilian occupations?
And isn't it about time the Army Reserves were really treated as part of the "total force", as distinct from being seen in some quarters as second-class members of the ADF?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20389983-5007146,00.html
There are at least three reasons. The first relates to the state of the Australian economy, which has been in a prolonged boom for well over a decade. Traditionally, the ADF has enjoyed better recruitment rates when the economy has been in recession. We have a generation of young Australians who have known nothing else but the good times: a tight job market, low interest rates and good housing affordability.
Generation Y is notorious for not being interested in a career for life, which is what the ADF has been built on in the past. Falling birthrates and limited immigration prospects offer no short-term recruitment solutions for the ADF either.
The second reason concerns the overly narrow focus of the ADF's recruitment cohort. The fact is that the ADF is not entirely representative of contemporary Australian society. It is still typically Anglo-Celtic and male. It has tried to be more attractive to female recruits, but recent well-publicised cases of sexual harassment have not done its reputation much good in the wider community.
The question also needs to be asked: why do Australians from other than Anglo-Celtic backgrounds not find the ADF more attractive? Is this a case of real or perceived discrimination, or are there other reasons? Just why is Australia's experience in this regard so different from that of the US, which has relatively large numbers of African and Latino Americans in its armed forces?
And what's wrong with a couple of other ideas, such as recruiting officers laterally into the ADF from relevant specialised civilian occupations?
And isn't it about time the Army Reserves were really treated as part of the "total force", as distinct from being seen in some quarters as second-class members of the ADF?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20389983-5007146,00.html
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
With regards to a large percentage of African/Hispanic Americans in the US Armed Forces, that has to deal largely with demographics. Many of the people going into the armed forces, especially now, are people that don't have many opportunities to better themselves. I'm speaking of people enlisting, not joining the officer corps. It could be deficiencies in the education system in the area where they live (urban areas in particular) or for some rural areas, a lack of sufficient available employment. Due to the demographics, a large percentage of young people coming out of urban schools are black and/or hispanic, and those groups tend to be less likely to attend college after graduating high school (not sure the equivalent Aussie educational level). Also, in US businesses, employees without a college (university) degree are valued less, indeed, a Bachelors degree today is almost as needed today as a high diploma was 30-40 years ago.icelord said:
As a result, people that either lack the money or grades to get into college have a harder time finding gainful employment, and US job migration for skilled and unskilled labor hasn't helped.
Some of the perks which appeal to people in these situations are the signing bonuses for enlistment (I read they've reach US$40,000 for qualified people), as well as the allotments soldiers who complete their service can get to pay for college, something around US$50,000. That's enough to pay most if not all the costs for a Bachelors degree at most public 4 year universities.
Regarding the Land 400, aside from the 120mm via the M1, I don't think the army needs something else that large as long as tanks are deployed alongside APCs or IFVs. As I mentioned in a different NZ thread, 90mm or 105mm guns mounted in LAV III chassis makes sense to me for NZ since they lack tanks, but not for the ADF. As for updating the M113, I would say to continue with it, at least as far as the powerpack and applique armour. At the same time, start the selection process for an IFV, one with a little more muscle to it than the ASLAV. That way, if something comes along and not enough IFVs are available, there will still be mechanized APCs. Also, if there are enough IFVs, then updated APCs will be available to Reserve forces. As for the armament of the updated M113, I'd go with a remote turret 0.50 cal. MG for most with an automatic 40mm grenade for the rest. All this with the clear understanding that the vehicles are APCs not IFVs and are therefore not expected to engage the enemy directly.
seems like defence has bitten the bullet.
"About time" I hear some of you say
http://www4.janes.com/subscribe/jdw/doc_view.jsp?K2DocKey=/content1/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2006/jdw30422.htm@current&Prod_Name=JDW&QueryText=
"Australian Bushmasters to undergo rapid upgrades
Ian Bostock JDW Correspondent
Sydney
A little more than a year after the ADI Limited Bushmaster 4 x 4 armoured infantry mobility vehicle (IMV) made its operational debut, the Australian Army is to instigate a number of rapid acquisitions to improve the vehicles' survivability, firepower and habitability.
As a result of operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and based on feedback from soldiers in the field, Vice Chief of the Defence Force Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie said that the government had approved the rapid acquisition of a remote-weapon station (RWS) to enhance crew protection and firepower.
A Department of Defence spokesperson told Jane's that no decision to date had been made on which RWS will be fitted and that a number of systems were being considered.
However, with Norway's Kongsberg Protector RWS already serving successfully on the army's ASLAV 8 x 8 armoured cavalry vehicles, it is likely that this system will also be preferred for Bushmaster.
In 2004 limited non-recurring engineering and integration activities were undertaken on the Protector RWS by the army's Land Engineering Agency and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).
It is not yet known if the same version of the Protector RWS as that fitted to ASLAV will be adopted for Bushmaster. A lighter version of this system - marketed by Kongsberg as the Protector Lite - and able to accept low-recoil weapons such as a 7.62 mm machine gun may also be an option.
Netherlands Army Bushmasters being prepared for deployment to Afghanistan are receiving the Thales Swarm RWS.
A total of 44 RWSs will be procured at a cost of approximately AUD15 million (USD11.5 million) for the Australian vehicles. The first RWS-fitted Bushmasters will be fielded on operations before the end of 2006, according to Gen Gillespie.
The Defence Materiel Organisation and DSTO are also testing proposed enhancements to the vehicle's armour protection. The tests cover ballistics and blast protection and vehicle handling with external applique armour fitted. The installation of spall liners is being considered. A new cool-water drinking system is also planned to help soldiers better cope with hot, dry and/or humid conditions. A prototype system is to be field tested in October.
A 270-litre cool-water drinking system was originally a standard feature on the Bushmaster but was removed by the army as a cost-cutting measure in 2004 just prior to the vehicle going into initial production.
It is intended that all 26 Bushmaster IMVs currently on operations will be fitted with the new equipment, in addition to a number of training vehicles in Australia. "
I guess the question is whether a RWS mounting a 7.62mm would be ideal?
They're usually a 7.62/40mm (grenade) combo I think.
Of course it's better than nothing, but a 12.7mm would be better no?
rb
"About time" I hear some of you say
http://www4.janes.com/subscribe/jdw/doc_view.jsp?K2DocKey=/content1/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2006/jdw30422.htm@current&Prod_Name=JDW&QueryText=
"Australian Bushmasters to undergo rapid upgrades
Ian Bostock JDW Correspondent
Sydney
A little more than a year after the ADI Limited Bushmaster 4 x 4 armoured infantry mobility vehicle (IMV) made its operational debut, the Australian Army is to instigate a number of rapid acquisitions to improve the vehicles' survivability, firepower and habitability.
As a result of operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and based on feedback from soldiers in the field, Vice Chief of the Defence Force Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie said that the government had approved the rapid acquisition of a remote-weapon station (RWS) to enhance crew protection and firepower.
A Department of Defence spokesperson told Jane's that no decision to date had been made on which RWS will be fitted and that a number of systems were being considered.
However, with Norway's Kongsberg Protector RWS already serving successfully on the army's ASLAV 8 x 8 armoured cavalry vehicles, it is likely that this system will also be preferred for Bushmaster.
In 2004 limited non-recurring engineering and integration activities were undertaken on the Protector RWS by the army's Land Engineering Agency and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).
It is not yet known if the same version of the Protector RWS as that fitted to ASLAV will be adopted for Bushmaster. A lighter version of this system - marketed by Kongsberg as the Protector Lite - and able to accept low-recoil weapons such as a 7.62 mm machine gun may also be an option.
Netherlands Army Bushmasters being prepared for deployment to Afghanistan are receiving the Thales Swarm RWS.
A total of 44 RWSs will be procured at a cost of approximately AUD15 million (USD11.5 million) for the Australian vehicles. The first RWS-fitted Bushmasters will be fielded on operations before the end of 2006, according to Gen Gillespie.
The Defence Materiel Organisation and DSTO are also testing proposed enhancements to the vehicle's armour protection. The tests cover ballistics and blast protection and vehicle handling with external applique armour fitted. The installation of spall liners is being considered. A new cool-water drinking system is also planned to help soldiers better cope with hot, dry and/or humid conditions. A prototype system is to be field tested in October.
A 270-litre cool-water drinking system was originally a standard feature on the Bushmaster but was removed by the army as a cost-cutting measure in 2004 just prior to the vehicle going into initial production.
It is intended that all 26 Bushmaster IMVs currently on operations will be fitted with the new equipment, in addition to a number of training vehicles in Australia. "
I guess the question is whether a RWS mounting a 7.62mm would be ideal?
They're usually a 7.62/40mm (grenade) combo I think.
Of course it's better than nothing, but a 12.7mm would be better no?
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually we don't "man" our Armoured Regiment along NATO lines. Our Armoured Regiment has been deficient in it's manning ever since the Leopards were introduced. Each tank troop is supposed to have an extra vehicle meaning that 3-4 more tanks per Sqn would be needed to bring the Sqn up to actual "paper" strength.Whiskyjack said:
The reason for this is that the structure fits in better with our "light infantry" focus as the main role for our tank is infantry support, due to us facing little prospect of tank on tank warfare, but facing a large prospect of facing an opposing light infantry force in "close country" with a heavy system of bunkers and fortifications.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #117
Fair enough, although with the 'hardening' of the Army and the expectation that the Army will be operating alongside NATO troops, it wouldn't be stupid to reconfigure along NATO lines. A sqn can always be detached, and probably will be, to operate with an infantry heavy force, or even a Cav heavy force.Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed and it's far more likely that Australia would deploy a tank Sqn than the entire tank regiment. For starters if the entire regiment were to deploy there is no capability for "rotating" the troops. We'd have to hope the conflict were over in 6 months or they would have to be withdrawn without Australian replacement.Whiskyjack said:
This leads to another argument for an additional Abrams purchase for the Australian Army. Government's stated strategic direction is for Army to be capable of simulataneously deploying a brigade sized force on operations up to "medium level intensity warfighting operations" whilst maintaining the ability to deploy a battalion group to a completely separate theatre.
This requirement has not been met since the White Paper 2000 first articulated this publicly. This has lead to this recent announcement to increase the size of Army.
Now given the strategic rationale for the purchase of Abrams was to provide protection against highly lethal ATGW's "proliferating" in our region for our infantry, than the 2 Sqn structure of Abrams doesn't match up with the requirement to deploy concurrent forces when necessary as I outlined above.
If a brigade sized force were to deploy on medium intensity operations, it's going to require at least a full Abrams Squadron. Leaving only the second to provide a rotational force and/or attrition forces should we actually (heavens forbid) incur casualties on an operation. IN addition to which should our battalion group need a tank troop or more for it's operation, than the 2nd Sqn will not be able to provide a rotational force for EITHER deployment...
To my mind at least a 3rd Sqn therefore becomes necessary to ensure the Government's requirement can be adequately supported by our most capable armour...
Hopefully Army also recognises this and pushes for the 3rd Sqn to be re-instated and additional Abrams be purchased...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #119
I think I have said this above somewhere, but if the Armoured Brigade is to replace the M113 with a true AIFV, I would seriously look at converting the 2nd Cav to a heavier formation with AIFVs and even a sqn of M1s.Aussie Digger said:
From memory a US army heavy Cav Squadron (which is regiment size in comparison to Australia) has around 40 M1s and 40 M3s and is a truely formidable unit.
I can't see Australia going that far but if it was to have 2 sqns of AIFVs and 1 sqn of M1s in the 2nd Cav, along side the 2 Mech Battalions and the Armoured Regiment it would make it truly a heavy formationa and give it the flexability it needs.
Also the ASLAVs could be moved to a reserve Cav regiment.
While not likely I would not deem it out side of the realms of possibility either.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It's a possibility I will admit, though a remote one. Army is pretty happy with it's Cav Regiments as they are, though I think they could possibly make better use by forming combined units equipped with Bushmaster and ASLAV vehicles.Whiskyjack said:
My idea would be to create a unit like B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt to provide an "armoured" lift capability for a battalion, but add an ASLAV squadron for recon / cavalry tasks in support of that motorised battalion. This would create a similar unit to that as used in Iraq, with the established battle groups there, though with a larger infantry component.
With 6x ASLAV Sqn's on strength, if an appropriate number of Bushmasters were acquired, this would allow the Australian Army to boast 6x motorised battalion groups (a battalion group includes: a motorised inf battalion, a Cav Sqn, an artillery bty a combat eng sqn. a combat support company and when on operations additional units as necessary including: Tiger ARH troop, RBS-70 air defence troop, EW Signals troop, Tactical UAV troop etc) plus 2 mechanised battalion groups (with supporting Tank Sqn's to make them much more combat capable than the motorised btn's) and 3 light infantry battalion groups.
Such a force would be immeasurably more powerful than the current formations IMHO and actually give us GREAT forces for DOA operations. Larger scale operations would see the Btn groups located together as necessary.
This structure would also allow significant training benefits IMHO. The units to deploy would have experience operating together and be well aware of the foibles of the particular units they serve with.
The current arrangements where units are mixed and matched for operations as they spring up seems a little "ad-hoc" for my liking and though it has served us well on operations, may not be the best use of our capabilities.
At the very least they could trial it for a while to determine it's effectiveness compared to current arrangements...