ADF Defence Update 2005

[pepsi]

There was some talk of this here :

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4399

I figured there should be a new thread about it (sorry if there is one existing that this would fit into, i couldnt see anything)

Anyway, the defence update came out today, and there are two sites i can find that have info on this

http://www.defence.gov.au/update2005/index.cfm
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/hna/default2.htm

I'm not sure if there is more, like a detailed report in .pdf (which is what i was expecting), because that first URL doesn't have too much info, the 2nd has some more but the site was slow when i wrote this so i haven't been able to check through it all yet

I'm just wondering peoples thoughts on this update, is it what we expected, better, worse? etc

 

[cherry]

As far as I'm concerned, the Army Chief has created a very lovely website but forgot to actually provide any real increase in firepower for our army. Nothing but old news in a new format, old platforms in a new structure. There is nothing that I can see that "hardens" our army? What a waste of everyone's time!

 

[pepsi]

As far as I'm concerned, the Army Chief has created a very lovely website but forgot to actually provide any real increase in firepower for our army. Nothing but old news in a new format, old platforms in a new structure. There is nothing that I can see that "hardens" our army? What a waste of everyone's time!

You couldn't be more wrong, the website is horrible lol

 

[cherry]

The Chief of Army could have just come out and said that they were hiring another 1500 people and adding another mech battallion to use 30+ year old out dated sitting ducks, instead of pretending he's a politician and putting a bulls*#t spin on things and calling it the "hardend and networked army." What a crock! We are still 15 years behind where we should be. I have lost all respect for the ADF!

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think this "update" is worse. If anything this new structure will soften Army in my opinion. All our infantry battalions are being reduced to 3 rifle companies each. Down from the present 4. They are supposedly going to be bigger (ie: more personnel per company) but I won't hold my breath on that...

On top of this, 3rd Brigade is stripped of a battalion, a field battery, it's APC's, supporting assets including combat engineers and logistical support and gains only a squadron of Bushmasters to replace it's APC capability.

7th Brigade is stripped of it's Bushmasters, reverting to a light infantry brigade (without any additional helicopters to provide an air mobile capability though of course!!!) And gains nothing new.

The rest of Army (ie: reserve brigades) are completely stripped of any kind of armoured vehicle whatsoever, with it's current Light Horse, Lancer and Mounted Rifles units losing their APC's and becoming "light cavalry" formations. In other words, they'll do the same tasks as 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2/14 Light Horse regiments, but in Land Rovers, (or whatever vehicle replaces them under Project Overlander) instead of ASLAV's...

1 Brigade is the big winner, gaining an extra mechanised battalion, an extra artillery battery, additional APC's, additional Bushmaster IMV's, additional Combat engineers and support units, but only at the expense of the rest of Army.

I really can't see what the Army and Government is so excited about. All the so-called enhancements they talk about have already been paid for...

 

[daicos]

I agree that the current structure is too light and that there was a need to rebalance our orbat, but surely a more practical solution would have been to either de-link 5/7 or re-establish 8/9 as mech, and re-equip one of the light role battalions as a second regular motorised battalion.
Perhaps a better option would have been to create six large battle groups centred on six infantry battalions (2xmech, 2xmotor and 2xlight (airmobile).
Each of these core battalions would then form battle groups drawn adhoc at the brigade commanders descretion from the brigades other combat and combat support elements. As a positive I do think that the relocation of a regular army unit to Adelaide was a strategically important decision, it does show how important the recently constructed Adelaide to Darwin rail link is to the defence of this continent

 

[Whiskyjack]

I must admit that I am a bit dubious of the upgraded M113 when most western nations are now using AIFVs that are 30 tons + with a 25mm to 40mm main armament, it just seems to light.

As far as the organization, there are only five infantry battalions, I thought there was talk of adding a sixth? Going to 3 coys per battalion from 4 and adding 1500 troops, it will be interesting to see what eventuates with the new Fire Team Structure.

I also see Paul Dibb has commented on the fact that it will require all available RAN and RAAF resources to protect a landing of just 2000 troops off the new Amphibious Ships, that puts things into perspective!

Still it is easy to complain, and I will say that the Army needs to make the most of what it has before it can look at expanding upon it. Proportionately the Australian Army does not seem to be have been able to deploy great numbers over the last 25 years with the exception of East Timor, although I stand to be corrected. For instance the British Army seems able (although stretched) to deploy a significant proportion and keep it up. Even New Zealand’s army can keep proportionally more troops overseas.

 

[seantheaussie]

Perhaps a better option would have been to create six large battle groups centred on six infantry battalions (2xmech, 2xmotor and 2xlight (airmobile).

An army of 2s does not provide rotation sustainability, the army is kidding itself

Each of these core battalions would then form battle groups drawn adhoc at the brigade commanders descretion from the brigades other combat and combat support elements.

I much prefer permanent battlegroups which will require much less task organisation when deployed.

I must admit that I am a bit dubious of the upgraded M113 when most western nations are now using AIFVs that are 30 tons + with a 25mm to 40mm main armament, it just seems to light..

With the end of the Soviet BMP/BTR hordes IFVs are a result of an inability/unwillingness to really combine arms that helps the enemy kill 2 birds(AFV & squad) with one stone

I also see Paul Dibb has commented on the fact that it will require all available RAN and RAAF resources to protect a landing of just 2000 troops off the new Amphibious Ships, that puts things into perspective!

Also $8 billion of new spending

I will say that the Army needs to make the most of what it has before it can look at expanding upon it. Proportionately the Australian Army does not seem to be have been able to deploy great numbers over the last 25 years with the exception of East Timor, although I stand to be corrected. For instance the British Army seems able (although stretched) to deploy a significant proportion and keep it up. Even New Zealand’s army can keep proportionally more troops overseas

AGREED

 

[cherry]

So if the new mech batallion is going to operate M113s and Bushmaster vehicles, where are these platforms coming from? Do Army need to purchase more of these vehicles?

 

[Aussie Digger]

So if the new mech batallion is going to operate M113s and Bushmaster vehicles, where are these platforms coming from? Do Army need to purchase more of these vehicles?

There may be more Bushmaster purchases (Army holds options on another 470 vehicles...) but it's highly unlikely any more than the 350 M113's will be upgraded.

The M113's originally planned for B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt are now going to the 3RAR mechanised battlegroup and the Bushmaster vehicles originally planned for 7 Brigade (9RQR and supporting units specifically) are instead going to B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt and the 3RAR battlegroup.

9RQR being a reserve unit is going to have to soldier on with un-armoured "Perentie" IMV's instead of the Bushmaster's they were going to get...

What this will mean is 1 Brigade will operate ALL the upgraded M113's, bar the training schools. 3 Brigade will remain air-mobile, but have an armoured vehicle squadron (Bushmasters) for "higher" intensity ops, to give them a battalion lift capability.

7 Brigade will get enough Bushmasters for it's 2 high-readiness battalions (6RAR and 25/49 RQR) plus THEIR supporting units. The other battalion (9RQR) as I mentioned, will have to soldier on with it's existing (limited) capability, thus creating an un-balanced brigade.

The remaining reserve brigades will get nothing and WILL in fact lose their existing M113's... The only hope for any sort of reasonable capability from the reserve units, is if the Army chooses a half-decent vehicle under Project Overlander, (something like the Pinzgauer troop transporter would be nice) however I'm not going to hold my breath. They'll most likely remain "light infantry" with no motorised capability whatsoever other than riding in the back of un -armoured Unimogs, for the 15k's they're allowed to travel in them...

The in-balance in 7 Brigade and lack of capability in the remainder of Army (plus Bushmasters reportedly outstanding service in Iraq and Afghanistan), is why I think additional Bushmasters will be ordered. Whether the 470 mark is neared, is sheer speculation...

 

[Aussie Digger]

An army of 2s does not provide rotation sustainability, the army is kidding itselfI much prefer permanent battlegroups which will require much less task organisation when deployed.
With the end of the Soviet BMP/BTR hordes IFVs are a result of an inability/unwillingness to really combine arms that helps the enemy kill 2 birds(AFV & squad) with one stone Also $8 billion of new spending AGREED

2 SASR Squadrons have just rotated into and out of Afghanistan just fine. They only EVER have 2 sqn's available for "green" ops, with the 3rd tied up on year long CT duties.

2x Blackhawk Squadrons have served us brilliantly. 2x Cavalry Regiments are serving us brilliantly. Only having 2 units doesn't mean the unit can't be deployed, sustained and rotated. It simply limits the duration of said operations. If we had 3 of everything they could be deployed indefinitely, however the "coin" simply isn't there for that...

Unfortunately Sean, Ithink you're thinking of Brigade level deployments, when the ADF is really only big enough to support battalion level deployments at present.

An army of 2's is a catchphrase at best. We're not getting 2 of everything, just look at Army structure. How many tank regiments are we going to have? How many air defence regiments, helicopter regiments (and don't say 2. I KNOW we will have 2, however 1 is a tactical transport helo regiment, the other is a recon/surveillance and fire support regiment) will we have? The list goes on and on.

You prefer task organisation? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but military deployments don't fit into nice, neat scenario's. EVERY deployment we have ever made, requires mixing and matching capabilities to get the required structure right. 3 Brigade is probably the most task orientated group in Army. Every operation they've deployed on, they have required force elements, from other areas. Australia simply cannot afford to duplicate ALL the capabilities needed to enable a force deploy without ANY outside elements.

A perfect example is the 20th STA Regiment which has recently stood up at Enoggera. This unit is a divisional level "resource" attached to Australia's 1st Division, much like the 1st and 5th Aviation and 16th Air Defence Regiments are...

Do you really suggest such a unit should be divided between the Brigades??? It operates 6x weapons locating radars and is getting (I think) 6x operational TUAV's. A fine force this would make spread between 8 brigades... Do you honsetly think this is easier and more economical than simply attaching a sub-unit to a deployment force when necessary? If you do, I'm glad you're not in charge of Army force structuring...

 

[seantheaussie]

2 SASR Squadrons have just rotated into and out of Afghanistan just fine. They only EVER have 2 sqn's available for "green" ops, with the 3rd tied up on year long CT duties.

The third eventually takes a deployment.

Only having 2 units doesn't mean the unit can't be deployed, sustained and rotated. It simply limits the duration of said operations. If we had 3 of everything they could be deployed indefinitely, however the "coin" simply isn't there for that...

The army is saying 2s is for long term. There is the money for 3s if some capabilities are deleted.

Unfortunately Sean, Ithink you're thinking of Brigade level deployments, when the ADF is really only big enough to support battalion level deployments at present.

I don't see us deploying brigades very often, the Army does.

How many tank regiments are we going to have?

2 squadrons

How many air defence regiments, helicopter regiments (and don't say 2. I KNOW we will have 2, however 1 is a tactical transport helo regiment,

I am leaning towards composite helo rgts & trans/patrol sqns

You prefer task organisation? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but military deployments don't fit into nice, neat scenario's. EVERY deployment we have ever made, requires mixing and matching capabilities to get the required structure right. 3 Brigade is probably the most task orientated group in Army. Every operation they've deployed on, they have required force elements, from other areas. Australia simply cannot afford to duplicate ALL the capabilities needed to enable a force deploy without ANY outside elements.

I prefer the best minds in the army decide the most likely task organisation deployed & organise around that. It will probably still require additions/subtractions but less than pure line btns, giving greater cohesion & co-ordination

A perfect example is the 20th STA Regiment which has recently stood up at Enoggera. This unit is a divisional level "resource" attached to Australia's 1st Division, much like the 1st and 5th Aviation and 16th Air Defence Regiments are...

Do you really suggest such a unit should be divided between the Brigades??? It operates 6x weapons locating radars and is getting (I think) 6x operational TUAV's. A fine force this would make spread between 8 brigades... Do you honsetly think this is easier and more economical than simply attaching a sub-unit to a deployment force when necessary? If you do, I'm glad you're not in charge of Army force structuring...

I want brigade level CS & CSS in the line btns, not divisional OR army level CS & CSS

 

[Sea Toby]

Its the same with every Army. I would rather send abroad a brigade of combat ready battalions and companies, even though they are mixed and matched with others, than send a whole battalion abroad in which every element isn't totally combat ready.

 

[cherry]

Does anyone have any idea when the DCP is due out. Initial reports/rumours were for Feb (which is well and truly gone)?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Does anyone have any idea when the DCP is due out. Initial reports/rumours were for Feb (which is well and truly gone)?

Dr NELSON stated yesterday (15/3/06) that it's in the process of budget deliberations at present. I don't know if this process is quick or not, probably depends how "radical" the proposals are, ie: how expensive...

 

[cherry]

Thanks again AD . Is the federal budget released on May 9th or am I mistaken? Also, would I be right to assume that the DCP will be released before the federal budget? Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks again AD . Is the federal budget released on May 9th or am I mistaken? Also, would I be right to assume that the DCP will be released before the federal budget? Cheers

rumours are that the budget is around about $60bn until 2020.

 

[Supe]

There may be more Bushmaster purchases (Army holds options on another 470 vehicles...) but it's highly unlikely any more than the 350 M113's will be upgraded.

Is there any point to keeping on the M113's? Perhaps the ADF should look at other options, where better value could be realised? I'm dubious on these upgrades to old platforms.

 

[cherry]

Did anything interesting come out of the ADM 2006 conference over the last couple of days?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Is there any point to keeping on the M113's? Perhaps the ADF should look at other options, where better value could be realised? I'm dubious on these upgrades to old platforms.

The problem is that unless a 2nd hand (ie: refurbished) option is chosen, Army will have to wait 4-5 years to get new IFV/APC's into service. It needs a capable armoured vehicle in-service now to allow our mechanised forces to deploy with their vehicles.

5/7 had to deploy to Al Muthana in ASLAV/Bushmaster vehicles, cause our M113A1's simply can't be used in modern operations where ANY kind of anti-armour threat exists.

M113AS3/4's will be significantly deficient in firepower compared to ASLAV and newer IFV's and will lack armoured protection compared to newer IFV's (such as Bradley and Warrior), but they will provide better armoured protection than ASLAV/Bushmaster vehicles and better cross-country mobility.

At the end of the day, if they continue the M113 upgrade program, 5/7 RAR will get it's first upgraded APC's around December 2006 (a companies worth) and can start to work towards an operational capability. Any other option will delay this significantly.

A new APC/IFV project (Land 400) is scheduled to begin in 2010 anyway. I say get the troops the gear we have spent so much money on already as fast as possible ie: as an interim capability, (so 1 Brigade has a reasonable level of operational capability) and move to a better capability once Land 400 ramps up. By that time 3RAR will become mechanised and a proper mechanised brigade capability can be developed from there and the whole M113 saga can be forgotten about (at least in terms of operational capability) hopefully the project management and definition lessons haven't...