Australian Army Discussions and Updates

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think the last time the Australian army fought without pretty much full air cover was about 1942.
We came under air attack plenty of times in Korea…

But that is kind of my point. We are building for a high-end fight, but without the tools, certainly in any sort of numbers required, to engage in one…

We are continuing with our comfortable, niche, tokenistic force structure…
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
We came under air attack plenty of times in Korea…

But that is kind of my point. We are building for a high-end fight, but without the tools, certainly in any sort of numbers required, to engage in one…

We are continuing with our comfortable, niche, tokenistic force structure…
Australia isn’t exactly alone in having been continuing with a tokenistic force structure. The geopolitical situation in conjunction with how difficult it is to acquire replacement military kit quickly is a rude awakening to many pollies. Considering the huge combined manufacturing resources the West has, it is a shame all the players can’t get on the same page and coordinate efforts on procurement of military kit.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Contract signed for LAND 19 Phase 7B SRGBAD Enhanced NASAMS | ADBR

According to this 2 Batteries ordered and 6 (total or in addition?) planned with each battery according to the article to have 3 troops per a battery. If my understanding of the termninoligy is correct that will be 3 - 4 launcher's per a troop? giving 9 - 12 launchers each battery which means we can be looking at anywhere from 54 to 96 launchers (Depending if 6 batteries of 9 launchers or 8 batteries of 12 launchers or anything in between)... Im pretty sure it is the lower number but we can dream :)
Ahhhh.....I think you are confusing battery with regiment.
A battery with 3 troops would equal 12 units.
So 2 battery's would be 24 units.
So 54 is a long way off. Also I came up with the 30 figure bases on the budget and cost per unit, along with there being 30 RBS 70s in service.
So 24 plus 6 additional units that AD refers to is 30 units. That's better than I expected.
I think there 24 Rapiers in service once? And we did have redeye.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Ahhhh.....I think you are confusing battery with regiment.
A battery with 3 troops would equal 12 units.
So 2 battery's would be 24 units.
So 54 is a long way off. Also I came up with the 30 figure bases on the budget and cost per unit, along with there being 30 RBS 70s in service.
So 24 plus 6 additional units that AD refers to is 30 units. That's better than I expected.
I think there 24 Rapiers in service once? And we did have redeye.
I realised where I got the 6 battery figure from, I had recalled it off top of my head from wiki.. yea I know bad noobie, bad bad noobie. I have attempted to search to see if that figure is mentioned anywhere but find nothing. What I do see mentioned however is these two batteries are apperantly only the initial order so may be more down the line especially with real world knowledge gleaned in Ukraine.

Yes we did have 24 Rapiers in service at the same time.

Now I will go park my self in the naughty corner.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
With out wanting to get into the fantasy land discussions one thing I have had on my mind of late is the lack of long range air defence for our ground forces. NASAM is good but all in all its only a medium range system at best. What I have been wondering is if it would be feasible rather then an acquisition like a pac battery because those things are bloody expensive and just be another missile type to maintain could something like the SM6 or even SM-2ER be mounted onto a ground based launcher with an associated radar and other systems? Or is that silly thinking I should purge all thought of now?
 

Depot Dog

Active Member
They are doing it back to front these days. Instead of training people then sending them out to units, to consolidate their skills, they are giving them the bare minimum then sending them to units with task books to learn the job.

Instead of being taught the correct way by highly experienced, professional trainers, their education is left to 20 something year old junior NCOs who are only just competent themselves.

It's only when they start their WO and CPO courses that army and navy techos, begin to be exposed to civilian training and certification. The RAAF doesn't even have this, a techo can leave the RAAF as a FSGT or WOFF and be faced with years of study to gain civilian certification.

The argument is, "why waste money training someone if they are just going to leave, better to give the training and certification to those who stayed". Completely arse about, training young Australians is never a waste of money, even if they do leave the ADF, their increased skills and knowledge will benefit industry and hence the country.
My situation when I left the RAAF in 1990. I was a corporal cal tech. My trade was instrument fitter. My trade qualifications allowed me to apply to the Commonwealth Trades boards. I was given the Electrical Fitter (Instruments) trade certificate. The trade board wasn't well known and I was surprised that others didn't didn't apply. The certificate has given me exemptions and opened doors.

I hope this opertunity is still advailable

Regards
DD
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This link provides a pretty good idea of the cost of a PAC-3 system, only a guesstimate here but the total project cost would be anywhere between $3-6B for a dozen Launchers, Radars, fire systems, trg etc.
The Army Plans To Fire Its Version Of The Navy's SM-6 Missile From This Launcher the navys-sm-6-missile-from-this-launcher
The US Army is working on a dual SM-6/Tomahawk Launcher, Australia may be interested especially if we start building the SM-6 in Australia but time will tell. The other thing is, who is operating it Army or RAAF. The former only has experience in operating SR SAMs(may be a small number of senior Rapier operators left, but it will be few) and the latter will have zero. but either way a whole new Unit will have to be raised and all new facilities built, Staff raised, Trained and Sustained, this is not going to be a cheap exercise either way.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting given that BMT's Caimen-90 and Caimen-60 are tri-bow hull designs. I would expect the ILMV contender to be some kind of derivative of an existing BMT design, not unlike how the US Vigor MSV(L) is a derived from the Caimen-90


I am no expert but looking at the Caimen-90 design pics, it seems like it has a twin hull form but also a tri-bow which is intriguing.


I am sure there are others here better placed to comment, but I did find this article from BMT dating from February this year and specifically referring to the ADF; if credible some kind of Caimen derivative could be in the works.
Yes, the news from Defence Connect indicates it is the 90 and it appear to be a tri-bow monohull. Trying for the best of both worlds. The bow structure would allow the flow around the bow to be more efficient and may help increase the speed of the vessel.

BMT offers Caimen 90 to support Aussie amphibious capability - Defence Connect

Tri-bow monohull Fast Landing Craft (FLC) from BMT - Bing video
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
WRT army GBAD, I think that it is a huge failing amongst FVEY nations that their armies have let their anti air capabilities fall by the wayside. To much dependence has fallen upon the US air superiority capabilities that have existed and no allowance has been made for when a near peer air capability negates that air superiority. Both fixed and mobile GBAD capabilities are required.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If I recall correctly NASAMS is compatible with ESSM which would considerably expand its envelope. This raises the question as to whether it could be upgraded to ESSM Block 2.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If I recall correctly NASAMS is compatible with ESSM which would considerably expand its envelope. This raises the question as to whether it could be upgraded to ESSM Block 2.
AMRAAM-ER has been integrated onto NASAMS and can be launched from NASAMS II. From my understanding, there must be a booster added to the standard AMRAAM missile body, perhaps based on available length within the NASAMS launcher, but not available missile-body diameter, particularly once wings are added, perhaps explaining why ESSM I/II is not being included?

But in true ADF style, we are following the crawl, walk, run method and the only interceptor on NASAMS II planned at the present time, will be the AIM-120C7…

Future capability expansion will likely include additional effector types (AIM-9X and AMRAAM-ER likely).
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
With out wanting to get into the fantasy land discussions one thing I have had on my mind of late is the lack of long range air defence for our ground forces. NASAM is good but all in all its only a medium range system at best. What I have been wondering is if it would be feasible rather then an acquisition like a pac battery because those things are bloody expensive and just be another missile type to maintain could something like the SM6 or even SM-2ER be mounted onto a ground based launcher with an associated radar and other systems? Or is that silly thinking I should purge all thought of now?
PROJECT AIR-6501 exists to acquire that sort of capability on behalf of ADF… It’s pre-gate 1 approval atm and heavily dependant on the AIR-6500 air battle management system decision and integration, so heavens only knows the timeline for this one…

To me it’s a no-brainer and should be an integrated THAAD / PAC-3 Patriot based solution. No doubt, we’ll take 10 years or so to reach the same conclusion…

 

PeterM

Active Member
Yes, the news from Defence Connect indicates it is the 90 and it appear to be a tri-bow monohull. Trying for the best of both worlds. The bow structure would allow the flow around the bow to be more efficient and may help increase the speed of the vessel.

BMT offers Caimen 90 to support Aussie amphibious capability - Defence Connect

Tri-bow monohull Fast Landing Craft (FLC) from BMT - Bing video
Thanks alexsa.

I am curious to see how much the ADF's ILMV differs from the US MSV(L). From a layman's perspective, they seem to have similar requirements and purpose, although we could certainly include any of BMTs learnings from the MSV(L) program.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yes, the news from Defence Connect indicates it is the 90 and it appear to be a tri-bow monohull. Trying for the best of both worlds. The bow structure would allow the flow around the bow to be more efficient and may help increase the speed of the vessel.

BMT offers Caimen 90 to support Aussie amphibious capability - Defence Connect

Tri-bow monohull Fast Landing Craft (FLC) from BMT - Bing video
Just don't get this project.
Most of the offerings are to big for Canberra Class and yet far to small to transport a meaning full load over a respectable distance.

Regards S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Just don't get this project.
Most of the offerings are to big for Canberra Class and yet far to small to transport a meaning full load over a respectable distance.

Regards S
The ADF need a small Amphib that can self deploy around the Continent, enter River systems across the Top End or out to nearby Islands. In peace time it will be supporting ongoing Trg, Infrastructure support, delivering logistics. In war time, delivering and supporting small units in remote areas. There are a lot of places that a LCM can go that a LST cannot and we only have 3 large Amphibs so their availability for jobs like this is just not feasible. The Army needs something that has an improved open ocean capability then a LCM-8, better endurance, reasonably cost effective.
Don't underestimate the importance of being able to deliver a couple of Hawkeii's, a Truck and a section of Soldiers and a couple of weeks of supplies, 20ks up a small coastal River. It may not be as sexy as the LHDs or LPDs but it is an important one.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The ADF need a small Amphib that can self deploy around the Continent, enter River systems across the Top End or out to nearby Islands. In peace time it will be supporting ongoing Trg, Infrastructure support, delivering logistics. In war time, delivering and supporting small units in remote areas. There are a lot of places that a LCM can go that a LST cannot and we only have 3 large Amphibs so their availability for jobs like this is just not feasible. The Army needs something that has an improved open ocean capability then a LCM-8, better endurance, reasonably cost effective.
Don't underestimate the importance of being able to deliver a couple of Hawkeii's, a Truck and a section of Soldiers and a couple of weeks of supplies, 20ks up a small coastal River. It may not be as sexy as the LHDs or LPDs but it is an important one.
Thanks for the reply
If that's the need then maybe their on the correct path.
Very niche though
So were looking more at logistics for a very modest self contained unit around the top end.
Regional surveillance units and the like.

Regards S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the reply
If that's the need then maybe their on the correct path.
Very niche though
So were looking more at logistics for a very modest self contained unit around the top end.
Regional surveillance units and the like.

Regards S
Its there now and has been for decades using the LCM-8s, what we are seeing is a move to a little bit bigger and better platform. The LCM-8s do occasionally work with the LHD/LSDs and the new Boats will as well, just can't operate out of the Well Docks, that is what the smaller LCM-1Es are for.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Is there anything an LCM type can do that an LCH type couldn't do better?

Is there anything an LCM type that can't fit in an LHD or LPD can do that an LCU that can fit in a large amphib can't?

Steel is cheap and air is free so why acquire a vessel that doesn't offer much over a type that would fit in an amphib. If it's going to be too big to fit in a Canberra, why not make it as big as it can be, but can still access the restricted litoral waters required?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Is there anything an LCM type can do that an LCH type couldn't do better?

Is there anything an LCM type that can't fit in an LHD or LPD can do that an LCU that can fit in a large amphib can't?

Steel is cheap and air is free so why acquire a vessel that doesn't offer much over a type that would fit in an amphib. If it's going to be too big to fit in a Canberra, why not make it as big as it can be, but can still access the restricted litoral waters required?
Army v RAN politics may come into it, remember the Balikpapan Class LCH were originally Army but the RAN ended up taking them of the Army's hands. Crewing a larger vessel may be an issue for the Army, get up into the 45-50m range then you are going from a Crew of 3-5 to 6-10 and probably going from a Corporal to a Sergeant in command.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Army v RAN politics may come into it, remember the Balikpapan Class LCH were originally Army but the RAN ended up taking them of the Army's hands. Crewing a larger vessel may be an issue for the Army, get up into the 45-50m range then you are going from a Crew of 3-5 to 6-10 and probably going from a Corporal to a Sergeant in command.
Maybe but on the other side of things it also allows a further leg up in promotion with crews rather then being stuck on the smaller craft for their life having the chance to move up to an LCH could play a big role in retention of personnel for that field.
 
Top