Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Army & Security Forces' started by mickk, Nov 25, 2006.

Share This Page

  1. SteveR

    SteveR Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2016
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    Adelaide
    @bob Last time you raised this I reminded you the the Norwegians had selected then rejected Archer from their Swedish neighbors. What I failed to point out then is that the Norwegians then went ahead and ordered the tracked K9s that we plan to order:

    https://www.armyrecognition.com/sep...ivery_of_k9_155mm_howitzers_and_k10_arvs.html

    They join Turkey, Finland, India and Estonia. Dementia must be spreading??
     
  2. Bob53

    Bob53 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    Comment respectfully withdrawn and apologies to any former or serving members from one who never has.
     
  3. Bob53

    Bob53 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    Thank you. I was really referring to wheeled v tracked being transported over very long distances and the logistics tail this creates. I do understand that there is not a lot of options for wheeled SPGs. Please refer to previous post where the comment about being demented was withdrawn. I will avoid flippant remarks going forward. As to the M1A1s yes it’s very much the same issue. How long can we realistically sustain a forward based force of any size in Northen Australia and get them there in a threat environment?
     
  4. Takao

    Takao Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    Canberra
    Are you talking about fighting in Northern Australia or fighting elsewhere?

    Remember, the Brigade of 2029 is going to have significant amounts of tracked vehicles - M1's, IFVs and AEV. a handful of additional platforms isn't going to make an impact - especially as we've probably raided the other two Brigade's for their tanks...

    To move this to another theatre, I'm using a combination of commercial shipping and the amphibs. If I have to move them in theatre across a small distance they'll go themselves - otherwise it's tank transporters. We have bought more - and the IFV's may be able to get away with L121's trailers, but if needs be we'll purchase more. Or steal from the other two Brigades. The best thing about our tank trailers is that Drake is an Australian company that has many, many customers.

    In Northern Australia, I'm probably not fighting much. Why would I? I'll let the REDFOR come south, so that it's their lines of supply that are extended and they have to worry about supplying across the desert and Northern Australia - especially in the wet. Until then, I'll let the F-35s and Attack's have fun, crumping everything they can find....

    Moving the kit isn't an issue - remember that 1 Bde moves to Shoalwater Bay quite often and even 3 and 7 Bde deploy across distances that most other nations can't.

    You do hit on one problem though - resupplying the fuel and ammo is going to suck. Massively. Army is being pig-headed about ignoring this at the moment, we still live in an era where "we can sort sustainment out later - just get the kit" rules. For fuel, honestly, the readying and reset Bde's are losing their fuel assets to the deploying Bde. That's the simple answer. And we hope that between now and then we can have a reliable and sovereign third/forth line fuel supply system. For ammo, we actually have a partial answer - but we ignore it. 26 Tpt Sqn was set-up with one role - to bring ammo to the Arty Regt. Because we've ignored that capability and not really tested it, 26 Tpt now acts as a general support element of 17 Bde, moving kitchen's and 'stuff'. Unfortunately, it's going to come as a rude shock when those trucks go back to their job... There are also small things we can do to vehicles to simplify the resupply, but first you need the trucks.

    Note all this ignores the bigger question of where the fuel and ammo is coming from. But, assuming that bit away, we can support any force you want, up to a Bde(+) pretty much anywhere in the world you want (cold climates are iffy). It probably more comes down to an operational or strateic level decision - do we actually want to fight there.
     
  5. Bob53

    Bob53 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    Interesting that Lynx apparently has been knocked out of the Initial development program for the US Army Bradley replacement for fairly flimsy reasons and it’s causing some consternation in the US defence community. Apparently they couldn’t get the first demonstrator to the US in time and this leaves the program open to a single bidder, GDLS. There was a request for additional time but that was declined. There is some discussion about having the US having access to the vehicle in Europe but that was also declined. If in the end Lynx doesn’t get back on board or elect to not bid for the program in the next few years, it’s not a good thing for Australia. Having the US Army on a version of the Lynx would make our sustainment costs lower ( if Lynx wins) and the support base bigger. Lynx 41 disqualified from Bradley replacement competition Bradley Replacement: Army Risks Third Failure In A Row
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019 at 9:49 PM
  6. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    303
    The US starts a new program to replace the Bradley every couple years. Once this program inevitably fails, I’m sure the Lynx can bid for the follow on program to replace the M2A5.

    The hovertank is real, and some day the US will have it
     
    PeterM, Volkodav and ngatimozart like this.
  7. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,557
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Yep, and their future rifle calibre program is much the same. Even their FVL program is dodgy. They can't seem to get replacement capability programs to fruition, unlike the USAF & USN. Always big dramas.
     
    Takao likes this.
  8. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    303
    I don’t think either the USAF or USN can point fingers at anyone. The USN hasn’t introduced an effective new surface combatant since the Burke in the early 90s, and the USAF can’t seem to replace their tankers no matter what they try.
     
  9. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,727
    Likes Received:
    267
    Well the USAF did select the KC-30 before Boeing protested and had the requirements rewritten to penalise exceeding the required capability and the USN did have programs to replace the Spruances and Ticonderogas before politics dictated they had to make do with a rework of the Burke. They have serious issues with political interference and state parochialism that makes our current WA v SA and VIC v QLD situations look like family picnics.
     
  10. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Agree, considering the Pacific pivot, the KC-30 was a much better option for the USAF. The KC-46 problems just make the option even more attractive. Won't comment on political interference wrt shipyards, as a Canadian that would be like throwing rocks inside a glass house.:p
     
    Trackmaster and ngatimozart like this.
  11. Bob53

    Bob53 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    How far north would you be talking? An opponent with a very large and growing navy with say 60+ subs and rapidly growing airforce could probably overwhelm our limited fields in the north and our max readiness 6-8 destroyers and probably 4-5 subs pretty quickly. Send 30 missiles the way of any ship in the Australian fleet and assuming none get through it’s close to Winchester with defensive stocks...what then? How hard is it to lob a munition each few days in the centre of a well marked air field and keep it off line for as long as they want. Coming in at Geraldton or one of the major ports cuts the north off and it’s not to hard to prevent any meaningful response when your strike fighters can only operate for any more than 2-3 flight from 8 fields in the whole country. That supply line also is an issue for us heading to our Northen bases.... but that said no number of wheeled vehicles would make much difference by that point in time and this also means our ships are underwater, our airforce hasn’t got the legs from the east or Uncle Sam is out of the fight or no longer interested.
     
  12. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,557
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Just be aware that even though Takao doesn't have the blue Defence Pro tag, he is reasonably knowledgeable and therefore has some expertise. I have been following your arguments and you haven't thought them fully through, with assumptions that have strategic and logistical holes in them.
     
    Cadredave likes this.
  13. seaspear

    seaspear Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2018
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Melbourne
    With regard to Australian airfields ,I have read that there are over 3000 . I am not suggesting that they are all capable most being civilian but there is likely to be some contigencies over which can suppport military aircraft , another question would be of U.S military stores alredy in this country .
     
  14. buffy9

    buffy9 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Australia
    Avoiding going too deep into a wider ADF/geostrategic discussion, there aren't any threats that can muster such a force over such a large distance. China has many submarines and a growing air force - but it is also restricted by the need to have them fly/sail several thousand kilometres through the Malay Archipeligo (which does not account for Indonesia's reaction). By the time they are in the vicinity of North Australia (which is a big area), they have limited time on station with opposing forces more than likely present in greater numbers, considering China has limited aerial refuelling capability. This is not even accounting for any American presence in East Asia tying up possible resources, considering we would not get involved without them.

    Looking past China there really isn't any kind of threat that can muster such a massive force against us.

    We have 2/3 major ships with a primary or secondary sealift role. Also if we were to use a flashpoint example in the form of Korea (noting it has cooled down atm), then wheeled vehicles are going to struggle once road infrastructure degrades due to mud or poor development. Furthermore, everything I've heard about the MAN fleets mobility has been less than adequate for rough country.

    Gun trucks always seem like a good stop gap capability until mobility becomes an issue. Trucks, especially super heavy ones, are constrained by where they can go. The logic is that tracked SPG vehicles are heavier and can't go as far, which is only half true - tracks give them much greater offroad mobility by far, in spite of weight.

    If I was a commander, I'd be more concerned about a tracked SPG system like the K9 than an Archer/Caesar system - because the amount of places they can move to and fire from is substantially higher than what a gun truck can do, due to being largely constrained to road infrastructure/flat terrain.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019 at 10:32 PM
    aussienscale, Takao and Massive like this.
  15. Bob53

    Bob53 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    I certainly don’t profess to be any type of expert and happy to be taken to school if I am out of line. My understanding is that there is about 5 or 6 sets of critical support infrastructure ( engine lifts, diagnostic kit etc) that is required for F35 ops. Most of that kit isn’t being bought with sufficient spare units for forward ops but happy to be corrected. This is why it’s my understanding that the F35 can only be operated for any period of time from bases with this support infrastructure...but getting off track for this thread. I leave it at that.
     
    buffy9 likes this.
  16. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    897
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Invading Geraldton cuts off the North, really?
    The main arteries to the North include rail from Adelaide/Port Augusta and roads through both Queensland and SA. There is one road North from Perth through Newman, the a coastal road through to Karratha is secondary.
    Landing at Geraldton may threaten Perth but it’ll do SFA to compromise the north’s defences.
    As others have highlighted, deploying a force to within strike range of Australia’s remote NW and N is no easy task and the questionable reward is not worth the risk, a small number of submarines causes huge planning problems for an aggressor far greater than their number but that’s for another post.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019 at 11:31 PM
    Volkodav and Takao like this.
  17. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    897
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Reported in “The Australian” today (sorry can’t link)
    The Fijian Defence Minister, Inia Seruirate, suggests establishing a Pacific Regiment in the ADF. Apparently this has been discussed before.
    ASPI’s Senior Fellow Anthony Berlin suggests that Australia should consider inviting Pacific Islanders into Army for a 3 or 4 year period.

    Can members comment on the veracity of these propositions? my understanding of the benefits or otherwise is limited.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019 at 12:01 PM
    Boagrius and PeterM like this.
  18. Boagrius

    Boagrius Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject but I thought this was interesting:



    Gave me a little more perspective, perhaps, on why the K9 has been the preferred solution so far.
     
    t68, ASSAIL, ngatimozart and 2 others like this.
  19. buffy9

    buffy9 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Australia
    To be fair, the Caesar didn't have a half bad time from firing to departing. Getting set up isn't as big an issue, as it is assumed you haven't been seen or targeted yet. It is still a point loss though; whilst the vehicle still lags in mobility and protection.

    I have really been converted to the tracked SPG in recent months. I still believe towed and motorised guns have a place (primarily in the airmobile role and over longer land ranges, respectively), but I defintely believe a tracked SPG is the right option for the army as it stands.