Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

The last of the vehicles came off the line last year, unless an extension occurred at some point?

There is an interesting article in the most recent DTR release that indicates interest by Japan for 1-2,000 vehicles - though how much work this would entail from Bendigo is unknown, considering Thales has perhaps partnered with MHI.



I believe this would be damaging in the long-run. While I understand the desire to cut AFVs to fund other priorities, it remains a glaring issue. I suspect that if we start equipping 80% of our infantry units with PMVs, there will be zero drive to fix this in the future - leaving us with the minimal one mechanised battalion, which a capable brigade that does not make, even with an ACR.

I would hope that Bushmaster could refresh the current Bushmaster fleet, rolling enhancements out based on experience operating them over the past two decades. It remains a good vehicle, and if we sort out teething issues quickly (such as with this recent announcement), then an MR6/MR7 version may be better prepared than Hawkei was to phase out some of our older vehicles. Good thing about a refresh is that we can probably do it quicker, and start sending some of the older vehicles to do what they were supposed to do.

Just as Unimogs/Macks and Land Rovers needed replacing, so too will G-Wagon* and Bushmaster over the coming years. Or perhaps we can leave it past its use by date and pay the additional costs.

* I'm aware it isn't that old (last vehicle came off in 2012 iirc), so depending how worn out they are getting on duty, a twenty year life would have them needing replacement or refurb in 2032.

The structure of Army's Brigades for the remainder of this decade will be an interesting one to watch.
Difficult to speculate at this stage post DSR.

I'm still of the opinion that additional IFV's and SPG's will be ordered down the track.

That said, I still don't think we will eventually get anywhere near the suggested 450 vehicles as originally planned which obviously impacts how many Sqn's will actually be mechanized.
If correct I think that still stands at nine.
So 129 planned IFV's will probably equip 3 mechanised sqn's plus some vehicles for armour and engineers.

The M113 cannot soldier on forever and with limited intended IFV numbers change is inevitable.

For good or bad I can envisage more motorized units.
Will that transition start within a couple of years or in the 2030's I cannot say, but a 60 year old APC does not look particularly attractive.


Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

78 bushmasters, 18 months of work to begin immediately, mix of troop carrying and command vehicles, potential for strikemasters following

When are the earliest bushmasters expected to be replaced with a new design? (2025 According to 2016 white paper)

Current Numbers?
1,100 Hawkeis (635 4 door, 465 2 door) + 1058 trailers
900+ Bushmasters? + 78 more to be produced, back to 1,000?
300+ to overseas buyers or gifted

 

[buffy9]

The structure of Army's Brigades for the remainder of this decade will be an interesting one to watch.
Difficult to speculate at this stage post DSR.

I'm still of the opinion that additional IFV's and SPG's will be ordered down the track.

That said, I still don't think we will eventually get anywhere near the suggested 450 vehicles as originally planned which obviously impacts how many Sqn's will actually be mechanized.
If correct I think that still stands at nine.
So 129 planned IFV's will probably equip 3 mechanised sqn's plus some vehicles for armour and engineers.

The M113 cannot soldier on forever and with limited intended IFV numbers change is inevitable.

For good or bad I can envisage more motorized units.
Will that transition start within a couple of years or in the 2030's I cannot say, but a 60 year old APC does not look particularly attractive.


Cheers S

I have doubts we may see further buys of the IFVs or SPHs tbh. The option is there, though it fully depends on the GOTD and whether they see it as necessary. We may know more in August per CA, or when the defence strategy is released next year.

The M113 can't soldier on forever and it lacks protection for a modern environment. We see in battle in Ukraine now (not just war, but in battle) that things have become more decisive and lethal - and this is without operations in the kind of urban terrain we have in our region, with more angles from which to be attacked.

The Bushmaster is a good vehicle - it is fast, protected from small arms and IEDs, and carries what it needs. Its protection is not sufficient though - its an armoured car which can't stand anything significant, while its main armament and mobility is arguably less than the M113 now (most of our vehicles are regularly fitted with 7.62 or Minimi, despite capacity for more, while a lack of tracks limits where it can manoeuvre).

An inbetween may be a Boxer APC - we have MILVECOE, the vehicle is more mobile and protected, and like PMV can fit up to 50cal or AGL. It could be akin to the British MIV. That said, it still does not match priorities, and it remains far less suited than an IFV.

The reality is Army isn't the priority for the strategy recommended by the DSR. While we can't predict the next conflict, there is a focus on what they may be and it fits with what we are seeing in the region - all our regional allies and partners are emphasizing deterrence to maintain the status quo, with the Washington Declaration being the most significant example of this. China shares no land border with the immediate region or those we seek to align ourselves with - Army is pushing against a current, unfortunately.

 

[Mark_Evans]

And @Mark_Evans
My apologies, thought production was nowhere near that far along.

All good, just remembered an article last year in April 2022 talking that was in final stages

Thales Finishes Production of 1,000 Hawkei Military Vehicles for Australia

Thales has completed the development of 1,000 Hawkei protected mobility vehicles – light (PMV-L) for the Australian armed forces.

www.thedefensepost.com

And again in April 2023 discussing Ukraine interest.

Ukraine needs our Hawkeis now. It’s embarrassing we’ve made them wait so long

Ukraine has been asking Australia for 30 Hawkei vehicles for months, but not one of the much-needed light, armoured four-wheel drives has been sent.

www.smh.com.au

 

[old faithful]

Just watching question time....can't believe what I heard.
Males was asked by Gosling (ALP and ex Inf/Cdo officer) why the IFV numbers were cut back....Marles response in nutshell, was " what's the point of having a few hundred IFVs sitting around, as Australia is not likely to be invaded".
What a well thought out argument.....no need for other types of equipment in the ADF either then, let's make a list of things we don't need because we are not at risk of being invaded....anyone want to start?

 

[Redlands18]

Just watching question time....can't believe what I heard.
Males was asked by Gosling (ALP and ex Inf/Cdo officer) why the IFV numbers were cut back....Marles response in nutshell, was " what's the point of having a few hundred IFVs sitting around, as Australia is not likely to be invaded".
What a well thought out argument.....no need for other types of equipment in the ADF either then, let's make a list of things we don't need because we are not at risk of being invaded....anyone want to start?

What do we need 78 more Bushmasters for then?

 

[Shanesworld]

What do we need 78 more Bushmasters for then?

To sell to nz??? (ill organise the fundraising bakesale)

 

[Volkodav]

Just watching question time....can't believe what I heard.
Males was asked by Gosling (ALP and ex Inf/Cdo officer) why the IFV numbers were cut back....Marles response in nutshell, was " what's the point of having a few hundred IFVs sitting around, as Australia is not likely to be invaded".
What a well thought out argument.....no need for other types of equipment in the ADF either then, let's make a list of things we don't need because we are not at risk of being invaded....anyone want to start?

He was also 3RAR back in para days, so I'm not sure about his sanity.

Seriously though, he's good value, I have a lot of respect for him and I know he cares for vets. Not giving him a defence or veterans related portfolio was a mistake.

 

[old faithful]

He was also 3RAR back in para days, so I'm not sure about his sanity.

Seriously though, he's good value, I have a lot of respect for him and I know he cares for vets. Not giving him a defence or veterans related portfolio was a mistake.

Yes I know he was 3RAR, which is why I'm dissapointed he went ALP. (Toungue in cheek) would have preferred just about any party!
I was also dissapointed in his performance in the NT. Hosting ice coffee comparison competitions instead of drumming up business....

 

[Wombat000]

In the end of the day, the AS4 is not fit for purpose.
you know that, even I know that, Army knows that, the wider ADF knows that & Govt knows that.

Because of that if nothing else, I might suggest that Marles comment is not a definitive full-stop, but a deflection/reflection that the expenditure in treasure and effort in giving IFVs numbers a higher priority is CURRENTLY not justified.

It seems totally logical that the AS4 will be replaced in future budget cycles in palatable tranche numbers by further numbers of what’s already being built to do the job. Same story for SPHs.

…..Then again, there is always the possibility that every practical reason will be ignored and it will be an all mighty balls-up.

 

[knightrider4]

More than likely a balls up of monumental proportions. I don't believe even Marles believes what he is saying and the rationale he trots out regarding IFV's. The current government simply doesn't want to spend the money required to properly fund the Army, it's a strategy based on an decision not too fund it rather not being able to fund it. It will be extremely interesting to see where the money for the SSN's will come from because as it stands nobody knows especially the current government.

In the end of the day, the AS4 is not fit for purpose.
you know that, even I know that, Army knows that, the wider ADF knows that & Govt knows that.

Because of that if nothing else, I might suggest that Marles comment is not a definitive full-stop, but a deflection/reflection that the expenditure in treasure and effort in giving IFVs numbers a higher priority is CURRENTLY not justified.

It seems totally logical that the AS4 will be replaced in future budget cycles in palatable tranche numbers by further numbers of what’s already being built to do the job. Same story for SPHs.

…..Then again, there is always the possibility that every practical reason will be ignored and it will be an all mighty balls-up.

 

[Wombat000]

More than likely a balls up of monumental proportions. I don't believe even Marles believes what he is saying and the rationale he trots out regarding IFV's. The current government simply doesn't want to spend the money required to properly fund the Army, it's a strategy based on an decision not too fund it rather not being able to fund it. It will be extremely interesting to see where the money for the SSN's will come from because as it stands nobody knows especially the current government.

Im unsure of that.
A stated ‘re-role’ of Army is not just long range fires, but regional Littoral operations, hence the requirement for faster delivery of LCH enablers.

The AS4 is not suitable for deliberate contested operations, so further IFVs are inevitable even if at a slowed rate.

It’s easy to be pessimistic (and I suppose unrealistically optimistic), but the strategic environment dictates a higher probability for a meaningful solution.

I also have to presume that Defence already understands that the likely areas of operations are not all beaches and swamp, and armour is appropriate.

 

[Stampede]

Working on no additional IVF/ TANK / SPG/ Boxer vehicles other than the current stated numbers it is still a significant force!

A Sqn each of armour and Mech Inf, plus 2 Sqns of Cav, supported by a SPG Battery will all up be around 100 heavy vehicles.
This is potentially a realistic deployable force we could muster to deploy overseas but for...................................... you got it, logistics.

Our three large Amphibs would struggle to deploy such numbers.
Add to the reality if the above was to be deployed, then realistically there would most likely be motorized units with their accompanying Bushmaster and Hawkei's ,also SF's with their own vehicles; not to mention the massive logistic train of supply vehicles to support such a force.
How would we move such a force from A to B in the maritime context?



So yes I get it that we appear to have dropped the ball on Mechanised numbers, but I don't believe it will be the long term reality.
I also believe what we are getting coupled with other projects for ARMY are the correct numbers............................... for this stage of ARMY evolution!

So don't worry it will evolve as it should.
But don't expect 3 Mechanized battalions.
I doubt such numbers will eventuate which lead to the question of the time frame for the M113's

Something to consider!

If the LAND 400 P3 winner was announced tomorrow, when would we get the first IFV and when would the last one run off the production line.
I'd doubt the last one would appear this side of 2030 which means we should have time to play with the numbers.

Also we will have some time to build up our amphibious capacity to actually more stuff in realistic numbers.


Cheers S

 

[knightrider4]

Im unsure of that.
A stated ‘re-role’ of Army is not just long range fires, but regional Littoral operations, hence the requirement for faster delivery of LCH enablers.

The AS4 is not suitable for deliberate contested operations, so further IFVs are inevitable even if at a slowed rate.

It’s easy to be pessimistic (and I suppose unrealistically optimistic), but the strategic environment dictates a higher probability for a meaningful solution.

I also have to presume that Defence already understands that the likely areas of operations are not all beaches and swamp, and armour is appropriate.

But it's not really long range fires is it. They have scrapped the second regiment of SPH stating it does not have the required range. So now we have the grand total of 30 which means of course we won't be able to deploy 30. HiMARS has it's place but it's no panacea is it. What persistence does this system possess? Can you really see the Australian Army or for that matter any Army using this system for persistent fires at god knows how many tens of thousands of dollars per round for the most basic version, never mind the precision strike missile which I would bet the house we will purchase in such miniscule numbers as to be completely inconsequential. For all the great strategic uncertainty blah blah blah BS, LRASM still not ordered. Tomahawks so far into the future thats it's barely worth discussing. Guided weapons enterprise at least 2 years away and I would not be surprised that in two years we will still be discussing when it will commence. These are just my opinions and I certainly don't want this discussion to sound political as that's not my intention.

 

[Wombat000]

But it's not really long range fires is it. They have scrapped the second regiment of SPH stating it does not have the required range………... These are just my opinions and I certainly don't want this discussion to sound political as that's not my intention.

I agree with your sentiments.
im not trying to sound all glossy either, but I think I can rationalise perhaps why it’s going as is.

1: We used to typically acquire capability in large bulk orders, and then try for later expensive upgrades as required.
these bulk orders were mega expensive.
2: We are a small army. We can perhaps introduce a capability into the system in smaller niche training/logistics cadres, and equip the key operational units first with that new capability; all for avoiding initial upfront assault on a hectic budget.
It also provides the foundation for eventual wider uptake of the newer kit. The factories will be here & just need updated orders.
3: Also, a side benefit is it potentially reduces large scale upgrade programs, because later tranches are introduced at the later spec.

The trade off to this is of course a slowed conversion into the wider army. But if the strategic boffins conclude there is some scope in stretching the timelines for higher priorities, then perhaps that’s mitigated?

There is tho, at least to me, an impatient perception of some inertia in programs generally. Perhaps that’s just cos we don’t know, or it’s already been identified and solutions being addressed behind the scenes??

personally, I don’t recall prev govts or their relevant committees sounding so aware and proactive as they are now, so that gives me some confidence.

 

[Volkodav]

Prior to the acquisition of the M-777, Australia only had a single medium regiment with a grand total of 36 M-198 155mm.

The rest of the army made do with 105mm. There were no rockets, no missiles, no SPGs of any type. I am not talking ancient history here either, this was the status quo until the early 2000s.

Complaining that capabilities are still "2 years away", wow, ten or twenty years was the norm.

Reality check, things are better than they have ever been for army, just different, and maybe not as good as planned.

Then again the post WWII regular army was meant to consist of one regular and two militia armoured brigades with fifteen armoured regiments as well as mech infantry and SPGs, those were plans that never happened. There were the post WWI plans for a motorised army of five divisions. Ever heard of the Henderson Plan, that was for a two ocean navy with eight battlecruisers from before WWI.

 

[old faithful]

One of the issues that Marles made, was that because Australia is not at threat of invasion , would a future purchase then indicate that we ARE at threat of invasion? That will make it difficult for Labor to make the call for more IFVs, without admitting they needed more in the first place.
The battlegroup described earlier stated 1 armd sqn, 1 mech Coy, and 2 Cav Sqns. Plus plus....will the Cav Sqns provide the dismounts, or will Infantry?
Guess we will have to wait and see what happens . Really at this point in time, I only see the ALP purchasing missiles in this term of government, and we will need to see what happens if the "voice" gets through to see what happens after that.

 

[Volkodav]

One of the issues that Marles made, was that because Australia is not at threat of invasion , would a future purchase then indicate that we ARE at threat of invasion? That will make it difficult for Labor to make the call for more IFVs, without admitting they needed more in the first place.
The battlegroup described earlier stated 1 armd sqn, 1 mech Coy, and 2 Cav Sqns. Plus plus....will the Cav Sqns provide the dismounts, or will Infantry?
Guess we will have to wait and see what happens . Really at this point in time, I only see the ALP purchasing missiles in this term of government, and we will need to see what happens if the "voice" gets through to see what happens after that.

I love armour and would like to see more than enough to equip the army. That is, enough for a "square" armoured brigade, that is two tank regiments and two armour infantry battalions, plus supporting elements, as well as every other regular and reserve brigade having a cav regiment with a battalion lift IFV Sqn. as well as tanks and CAV.

I know I'm dreaming but so long as we get the manufacturing capability up and running we can always build more. We have just seen this with Bushmaster.

 

[Todjaeger]

I know I'm dreaming but so long as we get the manufacturing capability up and running we can always build more. We have just seen this with Bushmaster.

Not quite. Not only does the manufacturing capability need to be built and running, it then needs to be sustained, as well as the relevant supply chains and of course the workforce.

That is one of the major concerns I have about some of the cuts mentioned in the DSR. It is quite possible that the production runs for the reduced numbers could be completed before additional orders are made.

Related to that, I could easily see some of the int'l defence companies become reluctant to build/expand into Australia. It can require some serious coin to establish a new facility, and then to see that investment basically wither on the vine because the originally planned numbers get cut to a much lower number. NFI how much IFV's or SPH's would need to be built just to meet the costs involved in creating a new facility, training a workforce and establishing supply chains but I could easily see the potential for future partners to lose interest if they cannot be certain to just break even in terms of costs.

 

[Volkodav]

Not quite. Not only does the manufacturing capability need to be built and running, it then needs to be sustained, as well as the relevant supply chains and of course the workforce.

That is one of the major concerns I have about some of the cuts mentioned in the DSR. It is quite possible that the production runs for the reduced numbers could be completed before additional orders are made.

Related to that, I could easily see some of the int'l defence companies become reluctant to build/expand into Australia. It can require some serious coin to establish a new facility, and then to see that investment basically wither on the vine because the originally planned numbers get cut to a much lower number. NFI how much IFV's or SPH's would need to be built just to meet the costs involved in creating a new facility, training a workforce and establishing supply chains but I could easily see the potential for future partners to lose interest if they cannot be certain to just break even in terms of costs.

Agreed but with manufacturing going I could see incentive/pressure, to keep things ticking over.

I worked in manufacturing for years before moving to defence. We would order items from some suppliers, not based on value for money, but because the orders were needed to sustain their capability to deliver the low volumes of critical components we couldn't get anywhere else.

This is how we need to do defence. Not this ramp up, punch it out, shut it down, then start from scratch again in a decade or two.

Too many people looking at, and not picking over detail, instead of looking at the big picture.