Australian Army Discussions and Updates

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Forget which article but I do recall reading up on the K9/K10 offer that if the government was serious they would be sourcing the K9/K10's on a 1 to 1 ratio to ensure a large enough supply of shells. If the battery is deployed outside of base only having enough shells to reload one extra times could become an issue even more so if one of the K10's for what ever reason becomes disabled then your 4 gun battery would be down to having just 1 vehicle to reload all 4.

As with many defence purchases I would say the key isn't as much in how many guns we are getting but in the back end in regards to the units and vehicles to support and sustain them. If that isn't done right then it can quickly become more of a hindrance rather then an aid to the forces.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Also interesting to note that the K9 and K10 have the same engine and transmission as the proposed Hanwha Redback AS21.
A joint build of the K-9, K-10 and AS-21 at Geelong would make some commercial sense as you are looking at as many as 485 Vehicles but the AS-21 has to be selected first and that is 2-3 years away
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
A joint build of the K-9, K-10 and AS-21 at Geelong would make some commercial sense as you are looking at as many as 485 Vehicles but the AS-21 has to be selected first and that is 2-3 years away
The AS-21s commonality to the K9 (if chosen it as SPH) may erode the advantage the Lynx has in commonality to the Boxer.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Why would the CONOPs of land force elements or current and emerging aerial threats change what platform you bolt NASAMs to?
I was thinking more in terms of the ADF possibly deciding in the future to hand responsibility for air defence over land to the RAAF. At that point, Army would not really need a system like NASAMS, and depending on how the RAAF planned on handling that responsibility, the RAAF might see little need for NASAMS or similar types of systems.

The flipside of that idea is also a possibility, with the ADF possibly finding that in the future, Army needs a greater air defence capability, including a greater ability to be close to and keep up with armoured forces in the field.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I was thinking more in terms of the ADF possibly deciding in the future to hand responsibility for air defence over land to the RAAF. At that point, Army would not really need a system like NASAMS, and depending on how the RAAF planned on handling that responsibility, the RAAF might see little need for NASAMS or similar types of systems.

The flipside of that idea is also a possibility, with the ADF possibly finding that in the future, Army needs a greater air defence capability, including a greater ability to be close to and keep up with armoured forces in the field.
The ADF are due to get a LRAD System later next Decade, that will probably end up with the RAAF. NASAMS is the replacement for the RBS-70 SHORAD as well as replacement for the capability lost when the Rapier was retired back in the early 2000s. I very much doubt the Army would want to give up its own AD Systems.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was reflecting on whether the numbers suggest that there would be 2 batteries of 4 guns in each brigades RAA regiment?

Then a single battery of M777.

Thoughts?

Massive
I doubt the Army really knows how it will skin that cat yet. Obviously, it will all come down to people and money. The more M777s you replace with SPGs the more people you will save, but the more it will cost. There will be a balance in the middle somewhere.

I imagine the Army will want at least two SPG fire units per brigade, to support the mechanised battalion and the ACR. That might not be possible though, with the Army having to brigade batteries for larger conventional warfighting deployments. If the 30 system total is final (and not a placeholder number ahead of someone making a decision), I imagine it will be either two 4 gun batteries per brigade or one 6 gun battery, with the balance to be made up with M777s.

What's interesting is the possibilities for the Reserve here. With M777s becoming 'spare' and with the desire to see more integration with the Reserve, it would be easy to see the Reserve being tasked to provide crews for M777s to round out the gun regiments. For example, you could have one 6 gun battery of SPGs and two 4 gun batteries of M777s per regiment, with each Reserve brigade being tasked to train up two M777 gun crews to round out the ARA batteries at OLOC. That would give the Reserve a useful and attractive role without the expense of putting guns directly back into Reserve units.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The AS-21s commonality to the K9 (if chosen it as SPH) may erode the advantage the Lynx has in commonality to the Boxer.
It might erode the advantage slightly, but the commonality advantage between Lynx and Boxer would still be an order of magnitude greater.

Having a (more or less) common turret and common systems between the CFV and IFV will massively streamline training at the School of Armour, and make sustaining the capability within brigades much, much simpler. By comparison, the advantage in having the IFV and SPG, which are two very different vehicles, employed by very different units and with very different training pipelines, sharing some componentry is pretty minor.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was thinking more in terms of the ADF possibly deciding in the future to hand responsibility for air defence over land to the RAAF. At that point, Army would not really need a system like NASAMS, and depending on how the RAAF planned on handling that responsibility, the RAAF might see little need for NASAMS or similar types of systems.

The flipside of that idea is also a possibility, with the ADF possibly finding that in the future, Army needs a greater air defence capability, including a greater ability to be close to and keep up with armoured forces in the field.
As has been stated, the GBAD requirement will stay with Army, because no other service has the ability to sustain land forces away from fixed bases and keep up with ground manoeuvre. The semi-static AIR 6500 system will be very different in employment, and hence will be manned by RAAF.

There will never be a need for the NASAMS system to be closer to the FEBA than what a Hawkei/L121 vehicle can provide either. The armoured forces are sustained by wheeled logistics vehicles with less mobility than either platform, after all. You might mount an organic SHORAD vehicle on Boxer/IFV (something like Linebacker), but that fills a very different role to NASAMS (which has multiple vehicles making up the system, offboard cuing etc).
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I doubt the Army really knows how it will skin that cat yet. Obviously, it will all come down to people and money. The more M777s you replace with SPGs the more people you will save, but the more it will cost. There will be a balance in the middle somewhere.

I imagine the Army will want at least two SPG fire units per brigade, to support the mechanised battalion and the ACR. That might not be possible though, with the Army having to brigade batteries for larger conventional warfighting deployments. If the 30 system total is final (and not a placeholder number ahead of someone making a decision), I imagine it will be either two 4 gun batteries per brigade or one 6 gun battery, with the balance to be made up with M777s.

What's interesting is the possibilities for the Reserve here. With M777s becoming 'spare' and with the desire to see more integration with the Reserve, it would be easy to see the Reserve being tasked to provide crews for M777s to round out the gun regiments. For example, you could have one 6 gun battery of SPGs and two 4 gun batteries of M777s per regiment, with each Reserve brigade being tasked to train up two M777 gun crews to round out the ARA batteries at OLOC. That would give the Reserve a useful and attractive role without the expense of putting guns directly back into Reserve units.

I think before having a conversation about placing the M777's with the reserve;a serious conversation needs to be had as to what role the reserve is to have in the ADF.
Do we have a defence force of just full and part / part time soldiers, or can we once and for all have a true ready reserve style force for the long term.
I don't have the answers, but have seem many attempts and combinations over the years.
Can the levels of proficiency we expect of the reserve Commando units be carried over to other Corps or regiments.
Using reserve Artillery of M777s as a microcosm for a future ADF across the trades.
Would they be a training capability only?
Would we expect them to deploy in high intensity operations?
Would we have separate reserve and regular units or a 50 /50 mix or some other combination.

Again I am positive to the concept as it reflects the current and future work place so see many opportunity's
Whatever course is taken, it must be for the long term and embraced by both the regulars and reserves and be fully supported financially and culturally across the service.

All the best with that challenge

Regards S.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There will never be a need for the NASAMS system to be closer to the FEBA than what a Hawkei/L121 vehicle can provide either. The armoured forces are sustained by wheeled logistics vehicles with less mobility than either platform, after all. You might mount an organic SHORAD vehicle on Boxer/IFV (something like Linebacker), but that fills a very different role to NASAMS (which has multiple vehicles making up the system, offboard cuing etc).
Maybe not necessarily a separate organic Boxer / IFV based SHORAD vehicle. You could use the stock standard Boxers / IFVs fitted with something like the SAAB UTAAS Tank and Anti-Aircraft System - Universal Sight and Fire-Control System giving you the option to mount Stingers similar to Linebacker on one side of the turret, and Spike ER or Javelin on the other, if you so desire, with reloads inside the turret / hull. The 30 mm cannon on the Boxer and the IFV is going to do serious damage to any aircraft, fixed wing, helo, UAV etc., that comes within range. That in itself gives you a reasonably fighty fighting vehicle.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
As has been stated, the GBAD requirement will stay with Army, because no other service has the ability to sustain land forces away from fixed bases and keep up with ground manoeuvre. The semi-static AIR 6500 system will be very different in employment, and hence will be manned by RAAF.
I was thinking more in terms of the ADF possibly deciding in the future to hand responsibility for air defence over land to the RAAF. At that point, Army would not really need a system like NASAMS, and depending on how the RAAF planned on handling that responsibility, the RAAF might see little need for NASAMS or similar types of systems.

The flipside of that idea is also a possibility, with the ADF possibly finding that in the future, Army needs a greater air defence capability, including a greater ability to be close to and keep up with armoured forces in the field.

Comments about who owns what AD asset are missing the larger picture. Air Defence, or rather, Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD - yes someone missed an opportunity there for IMAD), is a Joint capability. Air Force has the lead because they are the Stream Lead (and it makes sense), but each service has AD elements that plug into the broader IAMD network. To focus on "green" should won this, "blue" that is old thinking that needs to be done away with. Army won't "hand over" air defence to the RAAF, rather the Joint Force will determine the best mix of blue, green and what AD units and put them into theatre - working in an integrated system.

At the moment, LAND 19-7B is an Army project and will go into an Army unit. It'll have RAAF and RAN members and be integrated with a IAMD network that includes Hobarts, Wedgetails, BMS and a whole bunch of other things as needed. At some point in the future, there may be RAAF NASAMs. Or Army MR/LR SAM. But it doesn't matter. I would be perfectly happy with RAAF NASAMs - because they would be able to keep up with ground manoeuvre as they'd be on the same platform as Army.

Also remember, that Army is getting a whole bunch of very accurate 30 mm cannons. It's contribution to the Joint IAMD is more than just NASAMs.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Comments about who owns what AD asset are missing the larger picture. Air Defence, or rather, Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD - yes someone missed an opportunity there for IMAD), is a Joint capability. Air Force has the lead because they are the Stream Lead (and it makes sense), but each service has AD elements that plug into the broader IAMD network. To focus on "green" should won this, "blue" that is old thinking that needs to be done away with. Army won't "hand over" air defence to the RAAF, rather the Joint Force will determine the best mix of blue, green and what AD units and put them into theatre - working in an integrated system.
I don't think I am missing the larger picture. I'm sure you would agree that the purpose of the services is to raise, train and sustain capability. Therefore the service that can best and most efficiently raise, train and sustain each capability gets to own it. That is why the NASAMS (or whatever GBAD capability that is employed) will be Army. The Air Force could not raise, train and sustain a GBAD capability that has to operate with ground forces. Their personnel are not trained to operate in that environment (drive vehicles tactically, use weapons other that the Steyr, operate under NVG, use CNR and BMS, provide for their own security etc), nor could they sustain the capability (such simple things as I/III/V) outside the boundaries of an air base. It doesn't matter what uniform the operators of the system wore, they would have to be trained by Army and sustained Army. Ergo, it makes sense that they are Army.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think before having a conversation about placing the M777's with the reserve;a serious conversation needs to be had as to what role the reserve is to have in the ADF.
Do we have a defence force of just full and part / part time soldiers, or can we once and for all have a true ready reserve style force for the long term.
I don't have the answers, but have seem many attempts and combinations over the years.
Can the levels of proficiency we expect of the reserve Commando units be carried over to other Corps or regiments.
Using reserve Artillery of M777s as a microcosm for a future ADF across the trades.
Would they be a training capability only?
Would we expect them to deploy in high intensity operations?
Would we have separate reserve and regular units or a 50 /50 mix or some other combination.

Again I am positive to the concept as it reflects the current and future work place so see many opportunity's
Whatever course is taken, it must be for the long term and embraced by both the regulars and reserves and be fully supported financially and culturally across the service.

All the best with that challenge

Regards S.
My POV is that the Reserve is very useful - but only at the individual and small team (section / platoon level). With the current framework the Reserve simply can't sustain anything that requires a lot of collective training (outside of general mobilisation anyway). The utter failure of the reinforcing battlegroup to provide a meaningful capability (rather than just 400 blokes in uniform that happen to be in the same place at the same time) has made that pretty clear. Looking at the future, it is likely that the most useful role the Reserve can play is filling holes in regular units created by manning shortfalls.

For example, being a gun number on a gunline (punching bombs out of an M777) is not difficult. It doesn't take a lot of training to get good (enough) at it. All the difficult stuff in Joint Fires happens in the OPs, JFECC etc where the work out what to drop bombs on and how to do it. So while there is no way the Reserve could sustain something like a full battery at a remotely useful NTM, maintaining enough qualified gun numbers to augment a regular unit would be relatively simple. A battery construct that had all the difficult stuff manned by ARA, and four guns manned by ARA, with Reserves tasked to provide the warm bodies to man the last two guns when needed, would be entirely workable. Such a model could be used to augment all Regular units/capability.

For me the key thing is that the unit would still have to function only with ARA staff, without Reserves. The Reserves are there to take the capability from some acceptable minimum to some better level. Otherwise, your entire capability becomes dependent on whether Johnno can get next week off work or not. For an example of how it doesn't work, you only have to look at the Cavalry. The Cavalry is (or at least should be) a permanent combined arms team, where the recon scouts are fundamental to the capability. However, at the moment the ARA can't fit scouts within the manning cap, so the ARES have to provide scouts instead. While the scouts the ARES provide are generally okay skills wise, they are simply not there often enough or reliably enough to sustain a useful capability. My experience is that you put in more effort trying to get scouts, equip them, train them up, and integrate them into the troops than you actually get out of them in terms of capability. In other words, they are a net drain on capability. I only kept taking them on exercises to avoid rupturing the relationship with the ARES RAAC units.

Of course, as I've mentioned before, the biggest obstacle to any meaningful reform of the Reserve is their own leadership. Who wants to be a CO if all you do is give individual soldiers over to someone else to take to war?
 

Nurse

New Member
Comments about who owns what AD asset are missing the larger picture. Air Defence, or rather, Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD - yes someone missed an opportunity there for IMAD), is a Joint capability. Air Force has the lead because they are the Stream Lead (and it makes sense), but each service has AD elements that plug into the broader IAMD network. To focus on "green" should won this, "blue" that is old thinking that needs to be done away with. Army won't "hand over" air defence to the RAAF, rather the Joint Force will determine the best mix of blue, green and what AD units and put them into theatre - working in an integrated system.

At the moment, LAND 19-7B is an Army project and will go into an Army unit. It'll have RAAF and RAN members and be integrated with a IAMD network that includes Hobarts, Wedgetails, BMS and a whole bunch of other things as needed. At some point in the future, there may be RAAF NASAMs. Or Army MR/LR SAM. But it doesn't matter. I would be perfectly happy with RAAF NASAMs - because they would be able to keep up with ground manoeuvre as they'd be on the same platform as Army.

Also remember, that Army is getting a whole bunch of very accurate 30 mm cannons. It's contribution to the Joint IAMD is more than just NASAMs.
Army operated at RAAF bases perhaps? Whilst Woodside is the cloud punchers base, it’s not really close to anything (keep SHORAD there by all means). Keeping a relatively strategic asset closer to major population centres makes sense. Williamtown or Amberley? Amberley must be pretty big and busy these days though-has it got the space?
 

SteveR

Active Member
Whilst Woodside is the cloud punchers base, it’s not really close to anything (keep SHORAD there by all means). Keeping a relatively strategic asset closer to major population centres makes sense.
I beg to differ - Adelaide is about 20 mins away down the South East Freeway and Edinburgh a major RAAF and now also Army base is about 50 mins drive away.
 

Nurse

New Member
I beg to differ - Adelaide is about 20 mins away down the South East Freeway and Edinburgh a major RAAF and now also Army base is about 50 mins drive away.
Like I said it’s not really close to anything, but forgot to add “important” ;-)
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Forget which article but I do recall reading up on the K9/K10 offer that if the government was serious they would be sourcing the K9/K10's on a 1 to 1 ratio to ensure a large enough supply of shells. If the battery is deployed outside of base only having enough shells to reload one extra times could become an issue even more so if one of the K10's for what ever reason becomes disabled then your 4 gun battery would be down to having just 1 vehicle to reload all 4.

As with many defence purchases I would say the key isn't as much in how many guns we are getting but in the back end in regards to the units and vehicles to support and sustain them. If that isn't done right then it can quickly become more of a hindrance rather then an aid to the forces.
Hanwha Australia Press Release

Hanwha Defence Australia’s Proposal to the Australian Army submitted in late 2018 for the provision of 30 K9 Thunder SPHs and 15 K10 ammunition resupply vehicles was the catalyst for this Government announcement and will be the basis moving forward directly with the Commonwealth as an Australian prime.
Looks like this idea originated in an unsolicited offer from Hanwha rather from a Government requirement.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
The more M777s you replace with SPGs the more people you will save, but the more it will cost. There will be a balance in the middle somewhere.

Thanks for your reply Raven22 - always hugely appreciated.

I imagine it will be either two 4 gun batteries per brigade or one 6 gun battery, with the balance to be made up with M777s.
My sense is that once the SPG are available there won't be a lot of M777 deployment.

Eventually a structure of 2 batteries SPG and 1 of M777 will be the structure - though possibly not straight away.

Would note the this again reinforces what a step change the current ADF modernisation plan is. Comparing todays ADF to that of 20 years ago is startling in a good way.

Regards,

Massive
 

Joe Black

Active Member
I reckon Defence has got to tread the SPG purchase very carefully. We could make things a whole lot worse on the already tested relationship with the Koreans.

Hanwha expects Defence to go with them as a default as they saw themselves as the winner of the previous bid. If the Army is going to prefer KF-41 Lynx rather than AS-21 Redback for the LAND400Phase3, then it is almost impossible to not award Hanwha with the SPG deal.
 
Top