Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

I wonder how those hull numbers trickle down to the regiments. Esecially the combat engineers?
As mentioned by Volkodav 3 Squadrons for the ACRs= 42 Abrams, 1 Squadron for training. Leaves 19 tanks. Maybe 2-4 with each Sabre Squadron as maintanace pool and the rest for test and trade shools.

I wonder how they would distribute the 29 ABV and 18 AVLB and then 19 Hercules?

There is no change to the size of the active fleet, it’ll still be three squadron of 14 tanks. The additional tanks will be used to create regional spares pools to remove the need to rotate tanks across the brigades and make it easier to keep the tanks serviceable.

I don’t think it’s been quite worked out who will own the engineer variants (the ACR or the engineer regiment), but each brigade will get a troops worth. A version of the ABV fitted with engineering attachments will be created to fill the AEV role (similar to the defunct M1 Grizzly), to give the ability to conduct mechanical breaching in addition to explosive breaching. As doctrine calls for the ability to create two lanes with 50% redundancy of breaching assets, each brigade will get a troop of three sections, each with an ABV, AEV and AVLB.

The M88s will be distributed more or less the same, with an additional one in each brigade to support the engineering variants.

 

[Navor86]

So four each of AEV, ABV and AVLB per Brigade?
What I found quite interesting is that ADF went for so many support variants of the M1. Other countries with far bigger tank fleets will, proportianally speaking, not buy as many support vehicles. For example Germany will get 44 new AEV and 31 new AVLB.

 

[Volkodav]

So four each of AEV, ABV and AVLB per Brigade?
What I found quite interesting is that ADF went for so many support variants of the M1. Other countries with far bigger tank fleets will, proportianally speaking, not buy as many support vehicles. For example Germany will get 44 new AEV and 31 new AVLB.

These are required minimum overheads to provide the required capability. If you don't have this minimum you will not be able to get your tanks, AIFVs and other heavy vehicles where you need to get them. It doesn't matter if the armoured engineering capability is supporting a combat team, battle group, brigade or division, if it's not there the mission objectives may not be achievable.

 

[vonnoobie]

Minimum not to mention regional and political differences. As Volk mentioned need minimum to make it useful but we are a long way away from a lot of our friendliest nations and with the potential terrain we could have to operate in would potentially require more then what others would need.

 

[Raven22]

So four each of AEV, ABV and AVLB per Brigade?
What I found quite interesting is that ADF went for so many support variants of the M1. Other countries with far bigger tank fleets will, proportianally speaking, not buy as many support vehicles. For example Germany will get 44 new AEV and 31 new AVLB.

Three of each vehicle type per brigade.

The reason for the higher number of support variants is the not so sensible fact that tanks are split across all the brigades. Therefore each brigade needs close to the same number of support variants as a proper armoured brigade. For example, on current plans there will be four M88s per brigade, yet if you tripled the number of tanks (three squadrons instead of one) you would only need to increase the M88s by 50%, for a total of six. Same with the engineering variants - if all the tanks were in a single armoured brigade you would arguably only need a single troop of engineering vehicles in the army, rather than three.

 

[Redlands18]

https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technolog-review/dtr-may-21/flipbook/26/

Excellent article in this months Defence Technology Review Magazine about weaponising the Land 8710 Phase 2 Vessel(LCM-8 replacement) they are saying it will be 30-40% larger.
They talk about fitting a dual mount RWS that can fit either a M2QCB 12.7mm HMG or a Spike LR2 or a Fletcher-LGR firing 70mm APKWS. Another option they have put forward is a Containerised system based on the NEMO for 120mm Mortars. Also a 4 or 8 Cell Module for the Spike NLOS.
All these systems are already in service or soon will be, would be straightforward to fit to a LCM as needed. Gives them a reasonable self defence against small craft as well as being able to provide fire support to troops ashore.

 

[ASSAIL]

https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technolog-review/dtr-may-21/flipbook/26/

Excellent article in this months Defence Technology Review Magazine about weaponising the Land 8710 Phase 2 Vessel(LCM-8 replacement) they are saying it will be 30-40% larger.
They talk about fitting a dual mount RWS that can fit either a M2QCB 12.7mm HMG or a Spike LR2 or a Fletcher-LGR firing 70mm APKWS. Another option they have put forward is a Containerised system based on the NEMO for 120mm Mortars. Also a 4 or 8 Cell Module for the Spike NLOS.
All these systems are already in service or soon will be, would be straightforward to fit to a LCM as needed. Gives them a reasonable self defence against small craft as well as being able to provide fire support to troops ashore.

There’s lots of options for fire support mentioned but nowhere does it say that the new craft will be capable of being transported in the docks of either the LHD’s or Choules.
Is this requirement maintained?

 

[vonnoobie]

What I'm wondering is the 30-40% increase in size reference to the tonnage or the actual footprint of the craft.

If the former would allow loaded weight upto 150 tons give or take which is still a very small boat and likely able to still dock with the choules and LHD's but if the latter then it's pushing it into size range of LCU's such as the British Mk 10's.

Seeing as they are meant to be something between the LCM-8 and the Balikpapan's I'm thinking personally it's and increase in footprint. Which if the case the British do have a capacity to operate 1 LCU out of the Bay class.

 

[Redlands18]

I think the LCM-8 replacement being termed as the Independent Landing Craft means its going to be more about improving its ability to operate independently of other Amphibious Vessels. Possibly including improved accomodation, including better sleeping quarters then Stretchers, a decent Kitchen, maybe a rest area etc for the Crew, improved Comms capabilities, better Bunkerage, better Sea Keeping, better Cruising speed, possibly more so then increasing load carrying capability.

 

[Volkodav]

I think the LCM-8 replacement being termed as the Independent Landing Craft means its going to be more about improving its ability to operate independently of other Amphibious Vessels. Possibly including improved accomodation, including better sleeping quarters then Stretchers, a decent Kitchen, maybe a rest area etc for the Crew, improved Comms capabilities, better Bunkerage, better Sea Keeping, better Cruising speed, possibly more so then increasing load carrying capability.

Steel is cheap and air is free, if there is no need for them to fit in the dock of our existing amphibs then why not go big.

There is a lot of logistics and support work army watercraft can do that doesn't need the support of a major amphib.

 

[TheRealist]

With all these new toys that the Army is receiving, do the experts here think there will be a time (short of war) where we increase the size of the force from 2 divisions to say 3 divisions? The whole defence force seems to be increasing in size except for the Army.

 

[vonnoobie]

With all these new toys that the Army is receiving, do the experts here think there will be a time (short of war) where we increase the size of the force from 2 divisions to say 3 divisions? The whole defence force seems to be increasing in size except for the Army.

As much as we would love a bigger army the amount of equipment we are actually getting is the right amount to support our current size, if anything could be argued more of X equipment would be needed for our current size. Adding a 3rd division just means needing to add 50% more to all of our purchases.

Also comes down to is this 3rd division active, reserve, unit locations, it's structure, logistical support for it, not just at the divisional level but via the airforce, navy etc. Being a land locked nation deployment of our force abroad means we need to get supplies from here to there, with our current size could we support a full division deployed abroad let alone 2?

If hypothetically money and manpower was available I think you would find adding a 4th brigade and bulking them all up would come before another division.

 

[Redlands18]

With all these new toys that the Army is receiving, do the experts here think there will be a time (short of war) where we increase the size of the force from 2 divisions to say 3 divisions? The whole defence force seems to be increasing in size except for the Army.

The Army is increasing in size in a number of areas incl Arty getting SPGs and possibly MRLs and land based ASuW, Aviation 22 to 29 ARH, and possibly 4 more Chinooks, up to 18 light SF Helicopters, a LCH replacement. I think an increase to 4 Bdes in 1st Div would be more likely then a 3rd Div

 

[xhxi558]

I am very much of the opinion that conflicts going forward will largely be fought with what we have or what we can bring to bear within a very short time period. In general we will struggle to raise additional formations due to the long lead time to procure equipment, whether vehicles, weapon systems, BCMS, comms and sophisticated munitions.

If talking about priorities in terms of enlarging the army I would see the following high level order.

• Increasing strength of existing brigades - full armoured regiment, additional infantry battalion, more combat support
• More logistical and aviation support
• Add fourth brigade with same structure as three existing brigades
• Add a light infantry brigade in an amphibious/air assault configuration
• Additional equipment to allow x additional brigades to be raised at short notice (6-12 months)

 

[Stampede]

Steel is cheap and air is free, if there is no need for them to fit in the dock of our existing amphibs then why not go big.

There is a lot of logistics and support work army watercraft can do that doesn't need the support of a major amphib.

Pulu Keeling National Park




A good opportunity for our amphibious units big and small to all work with each other.
The LHD's are the standard going forward with the docking well the constant for the connectors such as the LCM1e with anything we acquire in the future integrating with this feature.
If if we are going LCM mk8 +50% then your looking at a LCU sized vessel.
Maybe I could see its place if it could " Fully " dock within the Canberra Class however if it's to really undertake independent mission for any given time I'd suggest its not one thing or the other.
As Volk has suggested if it cannot fit within the docking well then go big.
A modern sized LCH would be more appropriate.
Something that can sail for weeks around the coast and local islands.
Mate with the rear ramp of the LHD's and carry a much more significant load than a proposed beefed up LCM mk8.

Regards S

 

[spoz]

I’ve had a couple of experiences with Army watercraft, which, if we had actually been in a shooting situation, would have resulted in rather nasty blue on blue events. Admittedly, that was rather a long time ago but working out the command and control, if they are venturing off shore at all, is something that has to be done properly.

 

[Redlands18]

Pulu Keeling National Park




A good opportunity for our amphibious units big and small to all work with each other.
The LHD's are the standard going forward with the docking well the constant for the connectors such as the LCM1e with anything we acquire in the future integrating with this feature.
If if we are going LCM mk8 +50% then your looking at a LCU sized vessel.
Maybe I could see its place if it could " Fully " dock within the Canberra Class however if it's to really undertake independent mission for any given time I'd suggest its not one thing or the other.
As Volk has suggested if it cannot fit within the docking well then go big.
A modern sized LCH would be more appropriate.
Something that can sail for weeks around the coast and local islands.
Mate with the rear ramp of the LHD's and carry a much more significant load than a proposed beefed up LCM mk8.

Regards S

The ADF operated both from the 1970s to about 2014 and are planning to do so in the future with a LCH replacement included in either phase 3 or 4 of Land 8710. Don’t underestimate what a useful capability the LCM-8 is, they have a very shallow draft and can go a lot of places a LCH can not. We have the LCM-1E for a LHD/LPD Ship to Shore Connecter, we don’t really need another Connector but we do need something that can go up tiny Rivers across the Continent and nearby Island Nations without having to employ the Choules to do so.

 

[ASSAIL]

What is the state of the 35th Water Transport Sqdn?
If larger independent craft are acquired will the current structure be enough to operate or has some of the expertise been lost since the big ship days of the VN era?
I would assume that just operating LCM8s and LARC’s came as a result of determining that the RAN will be the operating body for anything larger however that may stick in the craw of the old Water Transport fraternity.

 

[Stampede]

The ADF operated both from the 1970s to about 2014 and are planning to do so in the future with a LCH replacement included in either phase 3 or 4 of Land 8710. Don’t underestimate what a useful capability the LCM-8 is, they have a very shallow draft and can go a lot of places a LCH can not. We have the LCM-1E for a LHD/LPD Ship to Shore Connecter, we don’t really need another Connector but we do need something that can go up tiny Rivers across the Continent and nearby Island Nations without having to employ the Choules to do so.

Thanks Redlands
Riverine operations I fully support.
After all we have a massive coastline with thousands of Islands in the neighbourhood.
Yep lot's of coastal / riverine logistical and patrolling requirements.
Once upon a time the LCM-8s served as both a connector for Tobruk and the Kanimbla Class plus had some limited ability to sail independently.
The up shot was they could at the end of the day be taken to a distant destination by a "mother ship".

I just have reservations in the quest to get a better performer than the LCM -8 that it ends up being not one thing or the other.
Too big to be transported in the Canberra Class to undertake distant operations, yet still too small to carry a meaning full load and do justice to operating independently.

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

A thought crosses my mind, a modern day APD based on the Arafura Class OPV with a mix of Assault Boats and LCVP, CB90s or similar and a modern armoured and armed LCM/LCU. Ensure the eventual replacement for Choules has a sufficiently sized dock for whatever replaces the LCM-8, maybe even consider some sort of heavy lift ship to serve as a transport for multiple landing craft, assault boats etc. as well as a mobile base.