Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

In any news, a local Queensland based company, Cyborg Dynamic Engineering (https://www.linkedin.com/company/cyborg-dynamics-engineering/), is supplying defence 3 of their UGVs for trial:

@AuManufacturing news and media on LinkedIn: Cyborg Dynamics and BIA5 complete unmanned vehicle - Australian Manufacturing

Queensland electronics company BIA5 and automation company Cyborg Dynamics Engineering have produced their first three Warfighter unmanned ground vehicle...

www.linkedin.com

This UGV looks very much like that from Milrem from its outward appearance and config. I wonder if it is a local version of Milrem like robotic UGV that Defence is considering trialling and acquiring.

 

[kato]

This UGV looks very much like that from Milrem from its outward appearance and config.

Not really - on the Milrem Themis the two tracks are self-contained propulsion units effectively only connected by a plate across the width. Variants carrying a RWS simply have the RWS bolted onto that plate (instead of e.g. a box for the cargo variant).

This one looks more like traditional tracked propulsion from an engine mounted in the chassis. It's also only about half the size of a Themis.

 

[DDG38]

"Australian Army riflemen from Alpha Company of 8th/9th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, make entry after conducting an explosive breach on a building during urban operation training, a part of Exercise Ram Horn at Wide Bay Training Area, Queensland." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[Stampede]

"Australian Army riflemen from Alpha Company of 8th/9th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, make entry after conducting an explosive breach on a building during urban operation training, a part of Exercise Ram Horn at Wide Bay Training Area, Queensland." Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 49460

Different looking army compared to the 80s
SLR, greens and Vietnam era kit.
These young folk need and deserve the best gear.



Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

Different looking army compared to the 80s
SLR, greens and Vietnam era kit.
These young folk need and deserve the best gear.



Regards S

I would like to see the adjusted costs figure of outfitting a recruit in 1982 to one at Kapooka in 2022. I suspect that the difference would be Eye watering.

 

[ngatimozart]

Different looking army compared to the 80s
SLR, greens and Vietnam era kit.
These young folk need and deserve the best gear.

Regards S

Definitely, although I still much prefer the SLR. It was a great problem solver.



Pinched this from a private Pommy ex services Facebook page. I never lost one myself, but close to it more than once. I would think that the RSM would use his pace stick to insert it in a place where you wouldn't forget to lose it again.

For those who are unfamiliar with the item it is a gas plug from the L1A1 SLR rifle. If you misplaced it, your SLR went from being a semi automatic rifle to a bolt action rifle. Cunning people always had a spare or two on hand, otherwise one had to do some explaining to the WO/ RSM /CPO all of whom didn't have a sense of humour about such things. Neither did the cracker stackers / armourers / gunners.

 

[MickB]

That and capabilities that can be maintained predominantly through simulation with the equipment being of a type that requires minimal maintenance. Deployable rocket and missile capabilities could fit this type. Easy and cheap the develop and maintain the required skills, even though the equipment its self is high end and expensive, leave most on the gear in storage, use the minimum for training as required and do the rest of the training with simulators.

Going back to the talk of advanced tech to the reserves, I would like to explore the possibility of adding much older skills as well.

Given the recent success of stealthy hit and run ATGM teams in Ukraine and the proposal here that they be introduced to the reserves, I would consider adding some force enablers. (I do understand that part of this success comes from tactical and terrain issues that may not be repeated)

First of course is the ATGM teams, add to them the recon drone operaters to seek and find the targets.
All right pretty standard so far but in addition to this I suggest we add light infantry teams cross trained as pack animal (Mule) handlers.

The are several benefits, the ability to operate in difficult terrain eg heavily forested, jungles and/or mountains.
The transportation of more supplies and reloads to extend the length of operations more than troops on foot alone.
To take some of the burden of the troops so they can traverse the terrain quicker, with less injuries and arrive more refreshed better prepaired for a fight.
They could clear the region around any ambush of the enemy faster and further in the same time period as troops on foot.
Pack animals are more stealthy than vehicles.
The handlers, being trained infantry as well could as security for the drone/missile teams.

 

[ngatimozart]

Going back to the talk of advanced tech to the reserves, I would like to explore the possibility of adding much older skills as well.

Given the recent success of stealthy hit and run ATGM teams in Ukraine and the proposal here that they be introduced to the reserves, I would consider adding some force enablers. (I do understand that part of this success comes from tactical and terrain issues that may not be repeated)

First of course is the ATGM teams, add to them the recon drone operaters to seek and find the targets.
All right pretty standard so far but in addition to this I suggest we add light infantry teams cross trained as pack animal (Mule) handlers.

The are several benefits, the ability to operate in difficult terrain eg heavily forested, jungles and/or mountains.
The transportation of more supplies and reloads to extend the length of operations more than troops on foot alone.
To take some of the burden of the troops so they can traverse the terrain quicker, with less injuries and arrive more refreshed better prepaired for a fight.
They could clear the region around any ambush of the enemy faster and further in the same time period as troops on foot.
Pack animals are more stealthy than vehicles.
The handlers, being trained infantry as well could as security for the drone/missile teams.

Put everyone on horses and they can move even quicker and just as quietly. Can't see the army doing it though. Far to logical

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

... not a sound, and no give away deposits .... oh you mean electric bikes or trucks

 

[Stampede]

... not a sound, and no give away deposits .... oh you mean electric bikes or trucks

Practical bike or a bit of fun?

Watch these all-wheel-drive electric motorcycles get tested by soldiers for military duty

The New Zealand Defence Forces are currently trialing the UBCO 2X2 electric motorcycles for tactical use, as seen in a new video. UBCO 2X2 prepares for military duty The UBCO 2X2 is an all-wheel-drive electric motorcycle that has its roots in farm use, where one of its first duties was as a farm...

electrek.co

Cheers S

 

[Takao]

... not a sound, and no give away deposits .... oh you mean electric bikes or trucks

While we still have the doctrine (if not the training) to use pack animals, and did in Afghanistan, @FoxtrotRomeo999 is on point. And why we already have started looking there...

https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/videos/Electrification%20Video%20-%201920x1080.mp4

 

[Massive]

TL;DR: We need 1040 to do the job. Right now. So the 450 300 we have isn't enough, and hence we need more. Right now.

Thanks Takao.

Depressing reading. I had hopes that Land 400 would finally see the ADF with significant landpower and that is clearly not the case. I would add that from your desciption above with the 1000 IFV variant number only includes 2 BG of the follow on Brigade so the true need would indeed be more like 1500.

A couple of questions from me:

1. What would the role of Cav/CRV be here and would that replace any of the IFV variant ask?

2. Could instead of 4 triangular BG intead go for 2 armoured & 2 mech inf BG instead? Would this reduce the ask and would it fit within doctrine?

More broadly, looking at the numbers provided it feels unlikely that the 1000 (let alone 1500) variants would not be affordable. If these numbers are required for the current strategy to be implemented is there then a need to re-visit the strategy.

Thanks again as always - greatly appreciate the insight.

Regards,

Massive