Australian Army Discussions and Updates

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Collective training in the various roles is also crucial. It’s necessary of course for the individual soldier to have these skillsets, but the units and sub-units need time to train collectively in these varying roles, including lead up training specific to a particular exercise or deployment. The sum of all the parts, and all that…
I would say that 95+% of 3 RAR Training, is/was collective training.
Things like a rehearsal for a thing as basic as rally procedure on a DZ, could be walked through on a company parade ground. Boarding and exiting choppers was sometimes done with plastic chairs layed out to simulate UH1H/blackhawk seating on a footy field. (I kid you not).
The start of each year was always getting fit again, zeroing weapons, section/platoon/company exercises, a battalion sized section competition (the Opie trophy) which was always the hardest activity of the year. and culminating with a couple of major exercises towards the end of the year, battalion jumps, brigade or bigger sized exercises. of course the unit would be interrupted with deployments to RCB, international exercises or operations in our region or mid east. The flexibility of a unit like 3 RAR must be missed by the big wigs. You can deploy any infantry from an APC (run by Cav) with minimal training, but you cant create a battalion plus sized parachute group , capable of short notice deployment quickly.
and NO, 2 Commando does not have a parachute battalion group capability. It has a company group capability at best.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would say that 95+% of 3 RAR Training, is/was collective training.
Things like a rehearsal for a thing as basic as rally procedure on a DZ, could be walked through on a company parade ground. Boarding and exiting choppers was sometimes done with plastic chairs layed out to simulate UH1H/blackhawk seating on a footy field. (I kid you not).
The start of each year was always getting fit again, zeroing weapons, section/platoon/company exercises, a battalion sized section competition (the Opie trophy) which was always the hardest activity of the year. and culminating with a couple of major exercises towards the end of the year, battalion jumps, brigade or bigger sized exercises. of course the unit would be interrupted with deployments to RCB, international exercises or operations in our region or mid east. The flexibility of a unit like 3 RAR must be missed by the big wigs. You can deploy any infantry from an APC (run by Cav) with minimal training, but you cant create a battalion plus sized parachute group , capable of short notice deployment quickly.
and NO, 2 Commando does not have a parachute battalion group capability. It has a company group capability at best.
Don’t think Army misses the capability in the slightest, to be honest. It’s been gone for more than 10 years and apart from the old and bold (no disrespect intended) there is little desire to being it back.

The concept that Australia would ever deploy an entire battalion by parachute was a pipe-dream in reality.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No argument there, but it is an easy capability to maintain, and a very flexible option. A 6 battalion army is not big enough to support an airborne capability as well the other units it really needs. But if army was to expand, it does give flexibility beyond mech/motorised units.
 
No argument there, but it is an easy capability to maintain, and a very flexible option. A 6 battalion army is not big enough to support an airborne capability as well the other units it really needs. But if army was to expand, it does give flexibility beyond mech/motorised units.
Though funnily enough they maintained that capability even when we really only had four battalions.

It's obviously not a priority now, and while they may not practice battalion-size drops, company drops by 2nd Commando Regiment give at least some capability. (They're a little bigger than the standard rifle company aren't they?)

It's hard to see the Army going too far beyond the six and a half battalions we have now. I mean the plan we've been referring to is only to add another half a battalion. What would be realistic growth? Or the limit thereof?
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Commando companies are much bigger than any 3RAR rifle companies ever were.
The battalion group was a big big organisation however, with A bty 8/12 medium regt, a combat engineer sqn, a surgical team, sigs etc. Anyway its gone now, and to do it again would take a good 3-5 years.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Either way the army wins, both vehicles seem to be outstanding and better than pretty much anything else on the market.

There doesn't appear to be a poverty pack or pork barrel option in the mix at all. A pleasant change from the Kinnard days.
 
Hanwaha make the case for selecting Redback for land 400
Both vehicles left in land 400 phase 3 will be a major upgrade for Army and the ADF..
I am curious as to what others think will be the winner ...my money is on Lynx but the Redback is a sexy beast

HDA Team Redback - YouTube
If they're much of a muchness, then politics will come into it and I think Hanwha will have the edge because Lynx just means more jobs in Ipswich, while the Redback means jobs all over, including in marginal electorates. I imagine the politicians will start boisterously backing their horses - named Self-Interest - as the race goes on.
 
I don't have a horse in the race but I think the Redback will win. Jobs in Geelong and elsewhere. My concern, as with all of our big projects at present is time to getting into service...
 

rand0m

Member
Either way the army wins, both vehicles seem to be outstanding and better than pretty much anything else on the market.
100% agree, either vehicle is going to be light years ahead of the m113's. Probably one of the biggest platform capability improvements in the past 20 years.

I still have my reservations around GVM of these vehicles, infrastructure in Australia and ability to deploy in large numbers at present (RAN LCH replacement?)

Happy days for the Army either way.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
The thing is that there really is no civilian equivalent to Infantry, or armour for that matter. If you are a reservist you have to support a full time career and learn the often very different skills for your military career as an infantryman or vehicle crewman.
Absolutely. It's difficult.

I used to work with a TA (part time) SAS soldier, though, so it can be done. He quit his civilian job to go full-time, about the same time as I got another job. Said he was thrilled to be accepted, because in that regiment it's a hard transition from TA to regular.
 

Massive

Active Member
Either way the army wins, both vehicles seem to be outstanding and better than pretty much anything else on the market.
Fully agree.

My question would be whether there are significant gains in sustainability and training from having a common turret across the CRV and the IFV. My prior would be that these savings would be significant and would sway the decision all other things being roughly equal.

Thoughts?

Massive
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Fully agree.

My question would be whether there are significant gains in sustainability and training from having a common turret across the CRV and the IFV. My prior would be that these savings would be significant and would sway the decision all other things being roughly equal.

Thoughts?

Massive
I can't say which of the two contenders is superior to the other, but agree a lot of merit in a common turret across CRV and IFV.

A Boxer Lance turret on the Redback!!!!!!!!.....................................Impossible option or not ???????



Regards S
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Fully agree.

My question would be whether there are significant gains in sustainability and training from having a common turret across the CRV and the IFV. My prior would be that these savings would be significant and would sway the decision all other things being roughly equal.

Thoughts?

Massive
While it would obviously be a huge advantage for the turret to be the same, Phase 3 is deliberately written so that having commonality with the Phase 2 solution is not an advantage. I’m sure the contract lawyers had a large part to play in that decision. However, it would technically be possible for the Redback to be selected, but with the Lance turret to be provided as GFE and integrated onto the Redback hull. Whether the commonality advantages of that would offset the integration risk, and whether Hanwha would be receptive or not, I do not know.

Unless there is a large capability difference between the two vehicles (which seems unlikely at this point) my tip from a couple of years ago is unchanged. I think the Redback will win due to the government’s desire to expand the manufacturing base and spread the pork to Victoria.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
While it would obviously be a huge advantage for the turret to be the same, Phase 3 is deliberately written so that having commonality with the Phase 2 solution is not an advantage. I’m sure the contract lawyers had a large part to play in that decision. However, it would technically be possible for the Redback to be selected, but with the Lance turret to be provided as GFE and integrated onto the Redback hull. Whether the commonality advantages of that would offset the integration risk, and whether Hanwha would be receptive or not, I do not know.

Unless there is a large capability difference between the two vehicles (which seems unlikely at this point) my tip from a couple of years ago is unchanged. I think the Redback will win due to the government’s desire to expand the manufacturing base and spread the pork to Victoria.
Locally in Victoria there is a big push to develop the City Geelong.
Certainly this will help Hanwaha's Redback contender.
Not saying it's the better vehicle, just to reiterating a lot of ingredients in the selection puzzle.


Regards S
 
Locally in Victoria there is a big push to develop the City Geelong.
Certainly this will help Hanwaha's Redback contender.
Not saying it's the better vehicle, just to reiterating a lot of ingredients in the selection puzzle.


Regards S
They also signed a deal last week for some of the work to be done by a Tasmanian company in the marginal electorate of Braddon, held by an ex-serviceman, by the way.

Then again pretty sure there's another company there that does work for Rheinmetall. They do have more advanced manufacturing than you might think. The company that Hanwha is dealing with builds mining vehicles, so I guess some of the skillsets there would be transferable.
 
Last edited:

Massive

Active Member
Latest from ASPI:


Most interesting part of this discussion for me was the emphasis on Long Range Fires.

I believe this is an increasingly important force multiplier, and as a smaller army, Army should be looking to acquire HIMARS at army group strength (as opposed to the regimental strength as currently appears likely to be the case).

Thoughts?

Massive
 

Massive

Active Member
While it would obviously be a huge advantage for the turret to be the same, Phase 3 is deliberately written so that having commonality with the Phase 2 solution is not an advantage. I’m sure the contract lawyers had a large part to play in that decision. However, it would technically be possible for the Redback to be selected, but with the Lance turret to be provided as GFE and integrated onto the Redback hull. Whether the commonality advantages of that would offset the integration risk, and whether Hanwha would be receptive or not, I do not know.

Unless there is a large capability difference between the two vehicles (which seems unlikely at this point) my tip from a couple of years ago is unchanged. I think the Redback will win due to the government’s desire to expand the manufacturing base and spread the pork to Victoria.
While a realist and understanding that this is how the our world works, this is disappointing.

That said, immeasurable uplift in capability either way.

Regards,

Massive
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Unless there is a large capability difference between the two vehicles (which seems unlikely at this point) my tip from a couple of years ago is unchanged. I think the Redback will win due to the government’s desire to expand the manufacturing base and spread the pork to Victoria.
As a Brisbane resident who'd rather keep the jobs in nearby Ipswich, and despite my preference for Lynx, there is a substantial benefit in having different manufacturers, particularly by spreading the skills base and avoiding to some extent having a single point of failure. More is better.

Remembering my brief posting to 3 Base Wksp in the 70's where RAEME tradesmen and civvy contractors were remanufacturing Mk3 and Mk5 trucks and I could never imagine Australia having *three* lines building substantial numbers of brand new protected or armoured vehicles.

oldsig
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Another great issue of DTR Magazine, great article on current procurement programs as well as a round up on Land Forces 2021. One interesting thing they are saying is that the Land 129 phase 3 TUAS has been selected but not announced and it will either be Aerosonde with the V4 or Insitu with the RQ-21. As both systems are also contenders for Sea 129 Phase 5 which is the UAS for the Navy, will be interesting to see if it has any bearing.
 
Top