We don't actually have, nor have had at any time since WWII, an armoured brigade.
The Beersheba brigades were meant to be a mix of tanks, mech, motor units, not a dedicated armoured formation.
The Beersheba brigades were meant to be a mix of tanks, mech, motor units, not a dedicated armoured formation.
I see his point though.
By cutting back 450 to 130ish IFVs, and no follow on spg, for himars and missiles, what long term advantage is gained?
How many missiles for himars are we actually going to buy with the $ saved by the ifvs?
How many amraams for Nasam? How many land based anti ship rounds?
Once those himar rounds are fired, they are gone. The IFVs may survive a longer time.
If we did get 450 ifvs, we would have had at least 1 very capable mech brigade with the spgs ,Abrhams, boxers. That will now be reduced to a 1989s bn group like 5/7 RAR. Albeit with some great fire support. Hope we don't give away too many more bushmasters!
I can sympathise with concerns of the reduction in numbers of the I.F.V,s but for deterrent value or even the ability to maintain a credible threat it is likely to come from the platforms of the navy and airforce ,there has been some previous news on local development of missile production
Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan - ABC News
Lockheed and Thales muscle in on Australian missile manufacturing opportunity - Australian Manufacturing Forum (aumanufacturing.com.au)
LM and Thales Australia Finalize Teaming Agreement to Develo (asdnews.com)
America has also had a doctrinal change for its Marines that seems familiar to the A.D.F cutbacks
Marine Corps to Shut Down, Cut Back 7 MOSs as the Force Prepares for Change | Military.com
Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan - ABC News
Lockheed and Thales muscle in on Australian missile manufacturing opportunity - Australian Manufacturing Forum (aumanufacturing.com.au)
LM and Thales Australia Finalize Teaming Agreement to Develo (asdnews.com)
America has also had a doctrinal change for its Marines that seems familiar to the A.D.F cutbacks
Marine Corps to Shut Down, Cut Back 7 MOSs as the Force Prepares for Change | Military.com
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
For the former, that's where you would likely have challenges. Obviously it will depend on the composition of the battle group. Let's say it was a tank squadron, one or two cavalry squadrons, an armoured infantry company, maybe a rifle company (primarily to provide the scouts for the cavalry), plus a SPH battery, an armoured engineering troop and other supporting sub-units. You could have three rotations of that force before you would need to send back those who made up the first deployment. That is not ideal, but it does demonstrates it could be sustained for a time.
I see that the wreck of the Japanese transport ship SS Montevideo Maru has been found. I hope that it helps bring closure for all the relatives and descendants of those who perished. May the RIP.
www.abc.net.au
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
(Adapted by Keith Ingram JP [Ex RNZN])
E kore rātou e kaumātuatia
Pēnei i a tātou kua mahue nei
E kore hoki rātou e ngoikore
Ahakoa pehea i ngā āhuatanga o te wā
I te hekenga atu o te rā
Tae noa ki te aranga mai i te ata
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.
"Japanese transport ship SS Montevideo Maru sank with about 979 Australian troops and civilians on July 1, 1942, off the coast of the Philippines. It was torpedoed by an American submarine, which did not know it was carrying prisoners of war and civilians captured in Rabaul. In total, about 1,060 prisoners were lost, including 850 service members and 210 civilians from 14 countries."
Wreck of ship that sank with hundreds of Australians discovered deeper than Titanic
Hundreds of Australians were killed when the Montevideo Maru sank during World War II, with its location remaining a mystery — until now.
www.abc.net.au
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
(Adapted by Keith Ingram JP [Ex RNZN])
E kore rātou e kaumātuatia
Pēnei i a tātou kua mahue nei
E kore hoki rātou e ngoikore
Ahakoa pehea i ngā āhuatanga o te wā
I te hekenga atu o te rā
Tae noa ki te aranga mai i te ata
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
I can't think of a more appropriate or moving time to have finally located the final resting place of the survivors of Lark Force plus the civilians .
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Lest we forgetI see that the wreck of the Japanese transport ship SS Montevideo Maru has been found. I hope that it helps bring closure for all the relatives and descendants of those who perished. May the RIP.
"Japanese transport ship SS Montevideo Maru sank with about 979 Australian troops and civilians on July 1, 1942, off the coast of the Philippines. It was torpedoed by an American submarine, which did not know it was carrying prisoners of war and civilians captured in Rabaul. In total, about 1,060 prisoners were lost, including 850 service members and 210 civilians from 14 countries."Wreck of ship that sank with hundreds of Australians discovered deeper than Titanic
Hundreds of Australians were killed when the Montevideo Maru sank during World War II, with its location remaining a mystery — until now.
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
(Adapted by Keith Ingram JP [Ex RNZN])
E kore rātou e kaumātuatia
Pēnei i a tātou kua mahue nei
E kore hoki rātou e ngoikore
Ahakoa pehea i ngā āhuatanga o te wā
I te hekenga atu o te rā
Tae noa ki te aranga mai i te ata
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.
View attachment 50442
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I am not in the ADF so will bow to others knowledge of doctrine but I also disagree with the idea Australia should prepare for another mid east conflict. I thought it was a mistake in the first place. This is not meant to disrespect the efforts of ADF forces who served there, or their quality. I have friends who served there, one since deceased. However as a federal public servant in the Howard era I recall the many voices warning against going into Iraq back in 2003. In hindsight, I think they were correct. Likewise I think we had no business in Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden’s death in 2011.
With the focus now on defending Australia’s interests in the Indo Pacific, surely our primary focus is on the RAN and RAAF. Despite all the talk on AUKUS, in the short term SSNs won’t make much difference to the budget. What to do about IFVs, tanks, Apaches, F35s, destroyers, corvettes and frigates will have more immediate effect.
Despite talk about increasing defence spending, in the short term it will be difficult. The Ukraine war has cut (global) economic growth and increased inflation and interest rates. The later limits the ability of governments to borrow more. Even Germany has only achieved a small amount of the defence spending increase promised by Olaf Scholz in 2022. I’d be surprised if defence spending in 2023 increased to more than the 2.25% of GDP promised. I note the article warning of IFV cuts highlighted the ADF had $42 billion of unfunded defence projects over the next ten years, compared to the 2020 program. That means finding $4 billion per year.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
www.abc.net.au
That means increases in one area will require cuts elsewhere in the short term. This is on top of the presumed desire to rebuild the army along the lines of USMC changes.
For the army, I am not in a position to say what is most important. I have to wonder if all the systems proposed are needed for a USMC type role near Australia? I note the JSDF has announced it intends to abandon the use of attack helicopters, and Australia is about to spend $5 billion on new Apaches. Could we do better if that money were switched into the IFV program? At $40 to $60 million per IFV that would buy another 80 to 120 IFVs.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Australian Army is not the USMC and it should never become a clone of the USMC. For starters the US can fill any gaps in Marine capabilities with Army Units if and when needed, we don't have that same luxury. the Australian Army is the be all and end all of Australia's land capabilities.I am not in the ADF so will bow to others knowledge of doctrine but I also disagree with the idea Australia should prepare for another mid east conflict. I thought it was a mistake in the first place. This is not meant to disrespect the efforts of ADF forces who served there, or their quality. I have friends who served there, one since deceased. However as a federal public servant in the Howard era I recall the many voices warning against going into Iraq back in 2003. In hindsight, I think they were correct. Likewise I think we had no business in Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden’s death in 2011.
With the focus now on defending Australia’s interests in the Indo Pacific, surely our primary focus is on the RAN and RAAF. Despite all the talk on AUKUS, in the short term SSNs won’t make much difference to the budget. What to do about IFVs, tanks, Apaches, F35s, destroyers, corvettes and frigates will have more immediate effect.
Despite talk about increasing defence spending, in the short term it will be difficult. The Ukraine war has cut (global) economic growth and increased inflation and interest rates. The later limits the ability of governments to borrow more. Even Germany has only achieved a small amount of the defence spending increase promised by Olaf Scholz in 2022. I’d be surprised if defence spending in 2023 increased to more than the 2.25% of GDP promised. I note the article warning of IFV cuts highlighted the ADF had $42 billion of unfunded defence projects over the next ten years, compared to the 2020 program. That means finding $4 billion per year.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
That means increases in one area will require cuts elsewhere in the short term. This is on top of the presumed desire to rebuild the army along the lines of USMC changes.
For the army, I am not in a position to say what is most important. I have to wonder if all the systems proposed are needed for a USMC type role near Australia? I note the JSDF has announced it intends to abandon the use of attack helicopters, and Australia is about to spend $5 billion on new Apaches. Could we do better if that money were switched into the IFV program? At $40 to $60 million per IFV that would buy another 80 to 120 IFVs.
That's about 1/3rd of a normal Brigade in reality... 129 vehicles will be allocated to a battalion and training schools from all reports. Even our Beersheba brigades are more than 2x the size of that.
it's equivalent to a vastly under-strength 1980's era 1 Brigade, however. The brigade that was famously so hollow and ill-equipped, it never went anywhere.
I'm not quite sure how we "prepared" to go to the MEA in the first place?I am not in the ADF so will bow to others knowledge of doctrine but I also disagree with the idea Australia should prepare for another mid east conflict. I thought it was a mistake in the first place. This is not meant to disrespect the efforts of ADF forces who served there, or their quality. I have friends who served there, one since deceased. However as a federal public servant in the Howard era I recall the many voices warning against going into Iraq back in 2003. In hindsight, I think they were correct. Likewise I think we had no business in Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden’s death in 2011.
With the focus now on defending Australia’s interests in the Indo Pacific, surely our primary focus is on the RAN and RAAF. Despite all the talk on AUKUS, in the short term SSNs won’t make much difference to the budget. What to do about IFVs, tanks, Apaches, F35s, destroyers, corvettes and frigates will have more immediate effect.
Despite talk about increasing defence spending, in the short term it will be difficult. The Ukraine war has cut (global) economic growth and increased inflation and interest rates. The later limits the ability of governments to borrow more. Even Germany has only achieved a small amount of the defence spending increase promised by Olaf Scholz in 2022. I’d be surprised if defence spending in 2023 increased to more than the 2.25% of GDP promised. I note the article warning of IFV cuts highlighted the ADF had $42 billion of unfunded defence projects over the next ten years, compared to the 2020 program. That means finding $4 billion per year.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
That means increases in one area will require cuts elsewhere in the short term. This is on top of the presumed desire to rebuild the army along the lines of USMC changes.
For the army, I am not in a position to say what is most important. I have to wonder if all the systems proposed are needed for a USMC type role near Australia? I note the JSDF has announced it intends to abandon the use of attack helicopters, and Australia is about to spend $5 billion on new Apaches. Could we do better if that money were switched into the IFV program? At $40 to $60 million per IFV that would buy another 80 to 120 IFVs.
Our forces were taskgroup based formations designed around training teams and force protection in the land domain, along with special forces elements. The major land capabilities we deployed were light infantry teams mounted in ASLAV's and Bushmasters, both of which were acquired primarily to suit a force structure intended mostly for the purposes of mopping up small groups of Musorians following on from the 1987 Defence of Australia White Paper. They were of course suitable for the types of operations we ended up conducting in the MEA, but that is testament to the suitability of the chosen vehicles to be adapted for the role, rather than a defined intent to prepare for a conflict in the MEA.
The development of forces as planned notably under LAND 400 Ph.3, HACS and Mobile Protected Fires are as different from the forces we "prepared" for our MEA operations as you could possibly get. They are genuine heavy land combat capabilities of the sort we don't and have never before really possessed and as such we deployed nothing of the sort to either Iraq or Afghanistan...
Assuming some credibility in the129 figure.
My take is about a third would be for training / spares and attrition which I make at 43 vehicles.
The remaining 86 vehicles I'd divide into three for Ready / reading / Reset phase of deploy ability and sustainment which is "about "28 IFV for duty.
Three/ four vehicles for the Armoured Sqn, none for the Engineers leaving about 24 / 25 IFV's for the Mechanised lift Coy / Sqn assuming the IFV comprises a number of variants.
24 IFV would fit within in the Heavy vehicle deck / dock ( LCM1e ) area of an LHD plus a few MBT's and M88's.
Still a fair bit of capability off just one ship utilising just one deck!
Just a thought
Cheers S
I doubt there will be phases for heavy armour. They will just be with an acknowledged warning time before deployment.
We will no longer be aiming to sustain large scale operations overseas for long durations but rather building capability at home to be deployed when needed.
There will be a lead time to deploy a battle group, another longer one for a brigade, reinforced by reserves and other elements.
To be honest, there is nothing public domain about what an armoured infantry section will look like, let alone an platoon, company or battalion. To mu knowledge it hasn't even been confirmed the infantry will operate the IFVs.
There is nothing about whether the M-1s will be concentrated into a single brigade along with the IFVs and SPGs.
A lot of the detail will be months away.
We will no longer be aiming to sustain large scale operations overseas for long durations but rather building capability at home to be deployed when needed.
There will be a lead time to deploy a battle group, another longer one for a brigade, reinforced by reserves and other elements.
To be honest, there is nothing public domain about what an armoured infantry section will look like, let alone an platoon, company or battalion. To mu knowledge it hasn't even been confirmed the infantry will operate the IFVs.
There is nothing about whether the M-1s will be concentrated into a single brigade along with the IFVs and SPGs.
A lot of the detail will be months away.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
True, there is much detail yet to be released in the public domain, though watching this announcement there is more out there now.
The defence industry minister said the IFVs will be concentrated in a single mechanised battalion in a "combined arms" brigade - reasonable to assume that will be 5RAR within 9th Brigade.
I believe it was previously said the SPGs will be going to 9th Brigade too.
It would make sense to concentrate most of the tanks there too, but that's just opinion.
KrustyKoala
New Member
Defence shake-up expected as long-awaited strategic review released — as it happened
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles have responded to the release of the Defence Strategic Review. Look back on Monday's updates.
www.abc.net.au
The report suggests that state and local governments and the Commonwealth should put in the plans, resources and capabilities to do this separately to Defence.
Mr Albanese says "the role of the Australian Defence Force is primarily not to deal with our natural disasters and those domestic issues".
"As a result of this review and the transparency in which we've conducted it, obviously, there will need to be further consideration of how we deal with these natural disasters," he says.
"We need to, as a government, and as a nation, work out an appropriate response and the review is really indicating very clearly that the context can't be just saying 'Oh, well, we'll rely upon the Defence Force'.
"The Defence Force are always very willing to participate, it must be said. And they have done an extraordinary job and will continue to do so. But the review indicates that there's a need to consider the broader issues in that context."
happy to hear this
knightrider4
Active Member
Well from what Ive seen in the various news outlets the DSR is pretty much a fizzer. Another review of surface ship requirements and absolutely nothing new apart from what the previous administration announced. Perhaps some expediated deliveries but overall a net capability loss from what was planned. I'm pretty sure there was an episode of yes Prime Minister that could have substituted for this. Makes me wonder what exactly they spent 6 months doing, perhaps it took that long to stop a mass resignation from the Army.
Last edited:
I have skimmed through the publicly released DSR. It is very high level. No specifics other than the gutting of army’s close combat capabilities to fund long range fires. What is clear is that there is no real expansion on any capabilities, notwithstanding the increased threats that current government bleats about. Bit disappointing really.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
From page 58 (emphasis added):
8.28 Australia’s Army must be transformed and optimised for littoral manoeuvre operations by sea, land and air from Australia, with enhanced long range fires.
8.29 As a priority it must be able to provide:
a littoral manoeuvre capability by sea, land and air;
long-range fires, including land-based maritime strike;
air and missile defence; and
close-combat capabilities, including a single armoured combined-arms brigade, able to meet the most demanding land challenges in our region.
8.30 Enhanced domestic security and response Army Reserve brigades will be required to provide area security to the northern base network and other critical infrastructure, as well as providing an expansion base and follow-on forces.
8.31 The land domain force structure design priorities must result in significant changes to Army force posture and structure. Army’s combat brigades must be re-roled and select capabilities postured in northern Australia.
That does somewhat suggest the tanks being centralised. Will be interesting to see what the structure looks like.
8.28 Australia’s Army must be transformed and optimised for littoral manoeuvre operations by sea, land and air from Australia, with enhanced long range fires.
8.29 As a priority it must be able to provide:
a littoral manoeuvre capability by sea, land and air;
long-range fires, including land-based maritime strike;
air and missile defence; and
close-combat capabilities, including a single armoured combined-arms brigade, able to meet the most demanding land challenges in our region.
8.30 Enhanced domestic security and response Army Reserve brigades will be required to provide area security to the northern base network and other critical infrastructure, as well as providing an expansion base and follow-on forces.
8.31 The land domain force structure design priorities must result in significant changes to Army force posture and structure. Army’s combat brigades must be re-roled and select capabilities postured in northern Australia.
That does somewhat suggest the tanks being centralised. Will be interesting to see what the structure looks like.
knightrider4
Active Member
A
Anthony I cannot see how you equip a brigade with 129 hulls? Not all of those 129 will be IFV's there will be support elements there as well, leaving no attrition stock and very little for training.