Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by new guy »

NickC wrote: 02 May 2023, 10:38 Re: DSR - Hunter-class programme under threat?

New Albanese Labor government took office last June, their 110-page Defence Structure Review published and is scathing of the ADF’s current acquisition processes, declaring them not fit for purpose, was based on was based on a balanced force model capable of performing multiple different mission and the “Defence of Australia” doctrine and budget was over-programed by 24 percent for acquisitions, now a new strategy of denial for the ADF is key in our ability to deny an adversary freedom of action to militarily coerce Australia and to operate against Australia without being held at risk, including nuclear-powered submarines, long-range strike capabilities, and strengthening the country’s northern bases.

First outcome the Australian Army new IFV cut from 450 to 129 and any more SPH cancelled in favour of HIMARS and acquisition of medium and heavy landing craft and accelerated. The services plan to procure land-based anti-ship missiles, either the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) or LRASM, will be sped up plus acquisition of the PrSM Inc 2 with its seeker that can strike moving targets at sea.

The RAAF priority to acquire the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for its F-35A fleet, necessitating a fleet-wide upgrade to Block IV standard. This will also facilitate the integration of the LRASM aboard the F-35A. Australia is currently procuring LRASM for its fleet of F/A-18F Super Hornets.

There will now be an additional independent short follow-on study of the RAN surface combatant fleet, reporting in the third quarter, to ensure its size, structure and composition complement the capabilities provided by the new nuclear submarines. Naval News reporting it hints at a global trend towards a larger number of smaller ships and a shift away from surface fleet ASW to the more capable SSNs provided by AUKUS
That would appear to potentially impact the proposed fleet of nine Hunter-class anti-submarine warfare frigates, regarded as providing limited capabilities with just 32 vertical launch missile cells against 48 on each of the three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ler-ships/>
would cancelling the hunters be more radical than the cancellation for the SSK in favour of AUKUS SSN(R)?

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

There is a very strong case for AUKUS ,it wasn't the case to save money but get a submarine force that met capabilities a conventional submarine could not , consider the Pacific ocean is likely hosting the largest amount of submarines ,the Hunter class was identified as providing worlds best design in detection of to consider changing such for vessels of a smaller size lacking range and capability is not so much radical as a waste of money
These users liked the author Zeno for the post (total 3):
serge750wargame_insomniacR686

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by serge750 »

Perhaps they will do what our UK bean counters are doing & will try to save money & cut a few hulls & replace them with the T31 😂😂😂

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

Latest issue of U.K Journal mentions poor reporting of defence matters , how would the public know difference between high end warship and token one the same would go in Australia , if its about creating more employment by building corvettes etc. at the expense of real capability well the media who would have trouble knowing port from starboard, you wont get a real critique from
These users liked the author Zeno for the post (total 2):
R686new guy

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Zeno wrote: 03 May 2023, 01:31 Latest issue of U.K Journal mentions poor reporting of defence matters , how would the public know difference between high end warship and token one the same would go in Australia , if its about creating more employment by building corvettes etc. at the expense of real capability well the media who would have trouble knowing port from starboard, you wont get a real critique from

I could understand a cut in numbers if they intended to increase the capability across the board in regard to ASW task group replacing 9 hunters with 3 Hyūga plus a increase in tier 1 escorts such as a minimum of 9 Arleigh Burke flight III destroyers which can provide additional support to Hyūga or a Amphibious task group with the LHD. Sell the Hobarts to New Zealand to keep them in the region

Additionally, when a RAN Amphibious task group sailed, they could transfer some of the helicopters to Hyuga class to free the light vehicle deck from rotary storage to increase vehicle storage.

Pipe dream never going to see it but I think this government is going to cut cut cut another Rudd/Gillard government where they talk but do nothing

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

I can understand the logic tbh, if your opponent has invested heavily in anti surface and anti air capability then the only thing truly survivable if a real shooting war will be the ssn to go hunting, or indeed to launch a second strike against strategic targets.

If the Chinese start operating out of say the old Chinese territory of Vladivostok they will have easier routes for there subs up to the artic sea ice which much like the Russians is where they will hide the subs under the ice we need to find and there’s only one vessel capable of going up there.

The future is sub surface, the surface fleet will largely be used for non peer and defence of national infrastructure closer to home territories. You won’t be landing in China and marching to Beijing.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 08:20 I can understand the logic tbh, if your opponent has invested heavily in anti surface and anti air capability then the only thing truly survivable if a real shooting war will be the ssn to go hunting, or indeed to launch a second strike against strategic targets.

If the Chinese start operating out of say the old Chinese territory of Vladivostok they will have easier routes for there subs up to the artic sea ice which much like the Russians is where they will hide the subs under the ice we need to find and there’s only one vessel capable of going up there.

The future is sub surface, the surface fleet will largely be used for non peer and defence of national infrastructure closer to home territories. You won’t be landing in China and marching to Beijing.

No one suggesting we are marching to Beijing, but as Timor pointed out we nearly ended in disaster as Army was far too hollowed out and that was relatively benign. history shows you only ever win wars when boots are on the ground. airpower and long-range missiles only get you so far.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5d4ms.html
Secret China ‘war-gaming’ exercises expose Australia’s defence weaknesses

Top-secret war-gaming exercises conducted for the Albanese government have found the Australian Defence Force would struggle to respond to alarming but plausible scenarios such as China establishing a military base in a nearby Pacific nation.

Sources familiar with the classified version of the government’s defence strategic review said former defence chief Angus Houston and former defence minister Stephen Smith commissioned detailed analysis from experts within the Defence Department about specific scenarios that could draw Australia into armed conflict and shatter stability in the Indo-Pacific.​


As well as a possible war fought between the United States and China over the self-governing island of Taiwan, the classified version of the review examined how Australia would deal with Beijing establishing a permanent military foothold in a neighbouring nation such as the Solomon Islands.

A base on the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu would bring the Chinese military within just 2000 kilometres of the Australian mainland and upend the current balance of power in the south Pacific.

“The message was, ‘You’re f---ed’,” one source who was familiar with the review but not authorised to speak publicly said of the war-gaming exercises.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

R686 wrote: 03 May 2023, 09:33
SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 08:20 I can understand the logic tbh, if your opponent has invested heavily in anti surface and anti air capability then the only thing truly survivable if a real shooting war will be the ssn to go hunting, or indeed to launch a second strike against strategic targets.

If the Chinese start operating out of say the old Chinese territory of Vladivostok they will have easier routes for there subs up to the artic sea ice which much like the Russians is where they will hide the subs under the ice we need to find and there’s only one vessel capable of going up there.

The future is sub surface, the surface fleet will largely be used for non peer and defence of national infrastructure closer to home territories. You won’t be landing in China and marching to Beijing.

No one suggesting we are marching to Beijing, but as Timor pointed out we nearly ended in disaster as Army was far too hollowed out and that was relatively benign. history shows you only ever win wars when boots are on the ground. airpower and long-range missiles only get you so far.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5d4ms.html
Secret China ‘war-gaming’ exercises expose Australia’s defence weaknesses

Top-secret war-gaming exercises conducted for the Albanese government have found the Australian Defence Force would struggle to respond to alarming but plausible scenarios such as China establishing a military base in a nearby Pacific nation.

Sources familiar with the classified version of the government’s defence strategic review said former defence chief Angus Houston and former defence minister Stephen Smith commissioned detailed analysis from experts within the Defence Department about specific scenarios that could draw Australia into armed conflict and shatter stability in the Indo-Pacific.​


As well as a possible war fought between the United States and China over the self-governing island of Taiwan, the classified version of the review examined how Australia would deal with Beijing establishing a permanent military foothold in a neighbouring nation such as the Solomon Islands.

A base on the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu would bring the Chinese military within just 2000 kilometres of the Australian mainland and upend the current balance of power in the south Pacific.

“The message was, ‘You’re f---ed’,” one source who was familiar with the review but not authorised to speak publicly said of the war-gaming exercises.
A police action in East Timor does not require a heavy armoured division. You are looking to do what China has done around its territory fill the place with anti access capabilities so they calculate it’s too expensive to come in.

If China sets up a military base in other islands it’s a problem but it would be more Cuban missile crisis style issue but with only one nuclear armed state involved. The idea would be I guess to ensure the islands in proximity to Australia prefers your values than that of the Chinese and there does not accept Chinese troops on there land.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 10:56
R686 wrote: 03 May 2023, 09:33
SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 08:20 I can understand the logic tbh, if your opponent has invested heavily in anti surface and anti air capability then the only thing truly survivable if a real shooting war will be the ssn to go hunting, or indeed to launch a second strike against strategic targets.

If the Chinese start operating out of say the old Chinese territory of Vladivostok they will have easier routes for there subs up to the artic sea ice which much like the Russians is where they will hide the subs under the ice we need to find and there’s only one vessel capable of going up there.

The future is sub surface, the surface fleet will largely be used for non peer and defence of national infrastructure closer to home territories. You won’t be landing in China and marching to Beijing.

No one suggesting we are marching to Beijing, but as Timor pointed out we nearly ended in disaster as Army was far too hollowed out and that was relatively benign. history shows you only ever win wars when boots are on the ground. airpower and long-range missiles only get you so far.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5d4ms.html
Secret China ‘war-gaming’ exercises expose Australia’s defence weaknesses

Top-secret war-gaming exercises conducted for the Albanese government have found the Australian Defence Force would struggle to respond to alarming but plausible scenarios such as China establishing a military base in a nearby Pacific nation.

Sources familiar with the classified version of the government’s defence strategic review said former defence chief Angus Houston and former defence minister Stephen Smith commissioned detailed analysis from experts within the Defence Department about specific scenarios that could draw Australia into armed conflict and shatter stability in the Indo-Pacific.​


As well as a possible war fought between the United States and China over the self-governing island of Taiwan, the classified version of the review examined how Australia would deal with Beijing establishing a permanent military foothold in a neighbouring nation such as the Solomon Islands.

A base on the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu would bring the Chinese military within just 2000 kilometres of the Australian mainland and upend the current balance of power in the south Pacific.

“The message was, ‘You’re f---ed’,” one source who was familiar with the review but not authorised to speak publicly said of the war-gaming exercises.
A police action in East Timor does not require a heavy armoured division. You are looking to do what China has done around its territory fill the place with anti access capabilities so they calculate it’s too expensive to come in.

If China sets up a military base in other islands it’s a problem but it would be more Cuban missile crisis style issue but with only one nuclear armed state involved. The idea would be I guess to ensure the islands in proximity to Australia prefers your values than that of the Chinese and there does not accept Chinese troops on there land.
I was talking about how the ADF (Army) was so stretched just doing that intervention and that was very low level. Now put the other shoe on if the TNI really tried to stop the ADF there wasn’t much they could do. It would require all of the 129 AFV to do something on a similar scale with no attrition replacement

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

Many of these Pacifica islands are facing problems of rising seas and poverty and have been to some extent neglected by Australia in what it could for them , If Australia committed significant funds to assist these countries there would likely be no reason for these countries to be looking elsewhere for relief ,
These users liked the author Zeno for the post:
SW1

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Zeno wrote: 03 May 2023, 21:52 Many of these Pacifica islands are facing problems of rising seas and poverty and have been to some extent neglected by Australia in what it could for them , If Australia committed significant funds to assist these countries there would likely be no reason for these countries to be looking elsewhere for relief ,
Australia is never going to be able to outspend China. But it comes down to trust China or Australia

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

Solomon Islands should be a cautionary story
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/worl ... lands.html
These users liked the author Zeno for the post:
SW1

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 10:56
A police action in East Timor does not require a heavy armoured division. You are looking to do what China has done around its territory fill the place with anti access capabilities so they calculate it’s too expensive to come in.

If China sets up a military base in other islands it’s a problem but it would be more Cuban missile crisis style issue but with only one nuclear armed state involved. The idea would be I guess to ensure the islands in proximity to Australia prefers your values than that of the Chinese and there does not accept Chinese troops on there land.
Australia (and New Zealand) literally exchanged cross-border fire with Indonesian military forces and paramilitary militias. (The Gurkhas got into it with someone too but I can't remember who that was – might've been locals). There were more than 10,000 potential enemy forces across the border and many of them wanted to start something. If that kicked off, you might not want a tank heavy armoured division, but you definitely want an armoured infantry division with tank support. Australia used its one and only Mech Infantry Battalion (at that time) to perform an amphibious landing in the East Timor territorial enclave in the South, occupied at the time by Indonesian militia forces, with the expectation it might be opposed (in a deniable way). If Australia had more Mech Infantry to deploy in East Timor, they absolutely would have. Every existing such unit was deployed. When you get into a fight with local forces, even if they're only rebels, if you have armoured vehicles you absolutely will deploy them. Otherwise, what else is there? A tree?

Think about the battle of Fallujah. No more than 3000 bad guys in a city of 300,000. They had nothing much more lethal than RPGs, mortars and machine guns – and the mortars didn't last long. Think about what it took to get them out. Even a fight on 1/3 of that scale is an enormous undertaking, but not hard to imagine. There's plenty of bustling towns of 50-100,000 people in the archipelago to the north of Australia. Each would be a brigade fight just to dislodge 500 combatants. At least.

The Chinese will try and destabilise the region before they waltz in and try and occupy various countries and regions. They might even get corrupt politicians to invite them in as "peacekeepers" (you can see that right now in the 'security' treaties they are trying to establish in the region). It could easily play out just like East Timor – which is why Australian Army officers are acutely aware of the benefits of armour. Australian military forces always have and always will be involved in securing these countries from any such instability where it's politically viable to do so. They may find themselves pitched against rebel military forces supported overtly or covertly by the Chinese. There may be a coup and/or counter-coups. Rebel groups and/or criminal gangs seizing territory. It's all happened before, and recently. There is absolutely scope for heavy fighting. Heavy machine guns in an urban setting are ridiculously lethal and absolutely the terrain you would wish to deploy heavy armoured forces – tanks and infantry. If you don't have them in the orbat, it's not a freaking option and the Chinese backed forces certainly have a better chance to win that one. And this is just these stabilisation campaigns we are talking about. It's not even direct military confrontation with Chinese forces. You turn up there with light forces and you are probably fooling yourself.

Australia can't face China in a land war. Of course not. Even assisting the US against a direct incursion in the Philippines, for example, would be difficult to do in a significant way, with land forces. But maybe, just maybe, we can stop the Chinese from destabilising the islands to the immediate north of Australia with separatist movements, coups and rebel forces. Something that's previously just happened naturally anyway. It won't take much for the Chinese to get the ball rolling again, so we can be fairly certain that we will need land forces of some scale to counter these developments, again. Lots of them. And yes sometimes, without too much in the way of heavy weapons use by the bad guys, it will require armoured forces to suppress and defeat these combatants. That's all the Australian Army was trying to achieve with its three relatively armoured Mech/Motorised Brigades prior to the DSR. Now not even that is all that achievable.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Mercator wrote: 04 May 2023, 06:02
SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 10:56
A police action in East Timor does not require a heavy armoured division. You are looking to do what China has done around its territory fill the place with anti access capabilities so they calculate it’s too expensive to come in.

If China sets up a military base in other islands it’s a problem but it would be more Cuban missile crisis style issue but with only one nuclear armed state involved. The idea would be I guess to ensure the islands in proximity to Australia prefers your values than that of the Chinese and there does not accept Chinese troops on there land.
Australia (and New Zealand) literally exchanged cross-border fire with Indonesian military forces and paramilitary militias. (The Gurkhas got into it with someone too but I can't remember who that was – might've been locals). There were more than 10,000 potential enemy forces across the border and many of them wanted to start something. If that kicked off, you might not want a tank heavy armoured division, but you definitely want an armoured infantry division with tank support. Australia used its one and only Mech Infantry Battalion (at that time) to perform an amphibious landing in the East Timor territorial enclave in the South, occupied at the time by Indonesian militia forces, with the expectation it might be opposed (in a deniable way). If Australia had more Mech Infantry to deploy in East Timor, they absolutely would have. Every existing such unit was deployed. When you get into a fight with local forces, even if they're only rebels, if you have armoured vehicles you absolutely will deploy them. Otherwise, what else is there? A tree?

Think about the battle of Fallujah. No more than 3000 bad guys in a city of 300,000. They had nothing much more lethal than RPGs, mortars and machine guns – and the mortars didn't last long. Think about what it took to get them out. Even a fight on 1/3 of that scale is an enormous undertaking, but not hard to imagine. There's plenty of bustling towns of 50-100,000 people in the archipelago to the north of Australia. Each would be a brigade fight just to dislodge 500 combatants. At least.

The Chinese will try and destabilise the region before they waltz in and try and occupy various countries and regions. They might even get corrupt politicians to invite them in as "peacekeepers" (you can see that right now in the 'security' treaties they are trying to establish in the region). It could easily play out just like East Timor – which is why Australian Army officers are acutely aware of the benefits of armour. Australian military forces always have and always will be involved in securing these countries from any such instability where it's politically viable to do so. They may find themselves pitched against rebel military forces supported overtly or covertly by the Chinese. There may be a coup and/or counter-coups. Rebel groups and/or criminal gangs seizing territory. It's all happened before, and recently. There is absolutely scope for heavy fighting. Heavy machine guns in an urban setting are ridiculously lethal and absolutely the terrain you would wish to deploy heavy armoured forces – tanks and infantry. If you don't have them in the orbat, it's not a freaking option and the Chinese backed forces certainly have a better chance to win that one. And this is just these stabilisation campaigns we are talking about. It's not even direct military confrontation with Chinese forces. You turn up there with light forces and you are probably fooling yourself.

Australia can't face China in a land war. Of course not. Even assisting the US against a direct incursion in the Philippines, for example, would be difficult to do in a significant way, with land forces. But maybe, just maybe, we can stop the Chinese from destabilising the islands to the immediate north of Australia with separatist movements, coups and rebel forces. Something that's previously just happened naturally anyway. It won't take much for the Chinese to get the ball rolling again, so we can be fairly certain that we will need land forces of some scale to counter these developments, again. Lots of them. And yes sometimes, without too much in the way of heavy weapons use by the bad guys, it will require armoured forces to suppress and defeat these combatants. That's all the Australian Army was trying to achieve with its three relatively armoured Mech/Motorised Brigades prior to the DSR. Now not even that is all that achievable.

Yes stopping the destabilisation of the nations to the north would be a priority but that would require significant upstream engagement way beyond just defence engagement.

If there is a chance of a coup or the like speed to sure up a government would be key and the only way for that is lighter protected vehicles brigades possibly in Australias case bushmaster based much like the U.K. deployment to Serria leone.

If Australian was looking at the rest of the army then an equivalent to us Army Stryker brigades or even a U.S. marine style unit would be more appropriate and allow protected mobility.


There is a staggering difference between needing armoured vehicles and needing 45 tonnes plus heavy armoured vehicles in a heavy armoured divisions. The logistics tail to supporting such a force is staggering if you want to do it properly!

It’s this time 3!

You would need to double the size of the Australian army.


Australia has zero ability to deploy such a force even the U.K. has zero ability to deploy such a force to Europe.

If you are needing to go and retake a town/city then you have monumentally failed in your strategy. You prioritise where the crucial points are and get there first to ensure that it’s the other guys problem to get you out!

If and on the current plan you will have a heavy armoured brigade that is more than sufficient should the need ever arise to attack someone on land as it will only ever be in a coalition.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Tempest414 »

And this why the UK should have 3 Stryker type brigades based on Patria 6x6

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SouthernOne »

SW1 wrote: 04 May 2023, 09:34
Mercator wrote: 04 May 2023, 06:02
SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 10:56
A police action in East Timor does not require a heavy armoured division. You are looking to do what China has done around its territory fill the place with anti access capabilities so they calculate it’s too expensive to come in.

If China sets up a military base in other islands it’s a problem but it would be more Cuban missile crisis style issue but with only one nuclear armed state involved. The idea would be I guess to ensure the islands in proximity to Australia prefers your values than that of the Chinese and there does not accept Chinese troops on there land.
Australia (and New Zealand) literally exchanged cross-border fire with Indonesian military forces and paramilitary militias. (The Gurkhas got into it with someone too but I can't remember who that was – might've been locals). There were more than 10,000 potential enemy forces across the border and many of them wanted to start something. If that kicked off, you might not want a tank heavy armoured division, but you definitely want an armoured infantry division with tank support. Australia used its one and only Mech Infantry Battalion (at that time) to perform an amphibious landing in the East Timor territorial enclave in the South, occupied at the time by Indonesian militia forces, with the expectation it might be opposed (in a deniable way). If Australia had more Mech Infantry to deploy in East Timor, they absolutely would have. Every existing such unit was deployed. When you get into a fight with local forces, even if they're only rebels, if you have armoured vehicles you absolutely will deploy them. Otherwise, what else is there? A tree?

Think about the battle of Fallujah. No more than 3000 bad guys in a city of 300,000. They had nothing much more lethal than RPGs, mortars and machine guns – and the mortars didn't last long. Think about what it took to get them out. Even a fight on 1/3 of that scale is an enormous undertaking, but not hard to imagine. There's plenty of bustling towns of 50-100,000 people in the archipelago to the north of Australia. Each would be a brigade fight just to dislodge 500 combatants. At least.

The Chinese will try and destabilise the region before they waltz in and try and occupy various countries and regions. They might even get corrupt politicians to invite them in as "peacekeepers" (you can see that right now in the 'security' treaties they are trying to establish in the region). It could easily play out just like East Timor – which is why Australian Army officers are acutely aware of the benefits of armour. Australian military forces always have and always will be involved in securing these countries from any such instability where it's politically viable to do so. They may find themselves pitched against rebel military forces supported overtly or covertly by the Chinese. There may be a coup and/or counter-coups. Rebel groups and/or criminal gangs seizing territory. It's all happened before, and recently. There is absolutely scope for heavy fighting. Heavy machine guns in an urban setting are ridiculously lethal and absolutely the terrain you would wish to deploy heavy armoured forces – tanks and infantry. If you don't have them in the orbat, it's not a freaking option and the Chinese backed forces certainly have a better chance to win that one. And this is just these stabilisation campaigns we are talking about. It's not even direct military confrontation with Chinese forces. You turn up there with light forces and you are probably fooling yourself.

Australia can't face China in a land war. Of course not. Even assisting the US against a direct incursion in the Philippines, for example, would be difficult to do in a significant way, with land forces. But maybe, just maybe, we can stop the Chinese from destabilising the islands to the immediate north of Australia with separatist movements, coups and rebel forces. Something that's previously just happened naturally anyway. It won't take much for the Chinese to get the ball rolling again, so we can be fairly certain that we will need land forces of some scale to counter these developments, again. Lots of them. And yes sometimes, without too much in the way of heavy weapons use by the bad guys, it will require armoured forces to suppress and defeat these combatants. That's all the Australian Army was trying to achieve with its three relatively armoured Mech/Motorised Brigades prior to the DSR. Now not even that is all that achievable.

Yes stopping the destabilisation of the nations to the north would be a priority but that would require significant upstream engagement way beyond just defence engagement.

If there is a chance of a coup or the like speed to sure up a government would be key and the only way for that is lighter protected vehicles brigades possibly in Australias case bushmaster based much like the U.K. deployment to Serria leone.

If Australian was looking at the rest of the army then an equivalent to us Army Stryker brigades or even a U.S. marine style unit would be more appropriate and allow protected mobility.


There is a staggering difference between needing armoured vehicles and needing 45 tonnes plus heavy armoured vehicles in a heavy armoured divisions. The logistics tail to supporting such a force is staggering if you want to do it properly!

It’s this time 3!

You would need to double the size of the Australian army.


Australia has zero ability to deploy such a force even the U.K. has zero ability to deploy such a force to Europe.

If you are needing to go and retake a town/city then you have monumentally failed in your strategy. You prioritise where the crucial points are and get there first to ensure that it’s the other guys problem to get you out!

If and on the current plan you will have a heavy armoured brigade that is more than sufficient should the need ever arise to attack someone on land as it will only ever be in a coalition.
How often, though, would any nation want to deploy its entire force to a single location at the same time? Out of the total available force, the number required for attrition replacements, training, and simple maintenance would be substantial. Then add in the numbers you want to hold in reserve for the next battle or campaign, wherever and whenever that may occur.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

SouthernOne wrote: 05 May 2023, 09:34
SW1 wrote: 04 May 2023, 09:34
Mercator wrote: 04 May 2023, 06:02
SW1 wrote: 03 May 2023, 10:56
A police action in East Timor does not require a heavy armoured division. You are looking to do what China has done around its territory fill the place with anti access capabilities so they calculate it’s too expensive to come in.

If China sets up a military base in other islands it’s a problem but it would be more Cuban missile crisis style issue but with only one nuclear armed state involved. The idea would be I guess to ensure the islands in proximity to Australia prefers your values than that of the Chinese and there does not accept Chinese troops on there land.
Australia (and New Zealand) literally exchanged cross-border fire with Indonesian military forces and paramilitary militias. (The Gurkhas got into it with someone too but I can't remember who that was – might've been locals). There were more than 10,000 potential enemy forces across the border and many of them wanted to start something. If that kicked off, you might not want a tank heavy armoured division, but you definitely want an armoured infantry division with tank support. Australia used its one and only Mech Infantry Battalion (at that time) to perform an amphibious landing in the East Timor territorial enclave in the South, occupied at the time by Indonesian militia forces, with the expectation it might be opposed (in a deniable way). If Australia had more Mech Infantry to deploy in East Timor, they absolutely would have. Every existing such unit was deployed. When you get into a fight with local forces, even if they're only rebels, if you have armoured vehicles you absolutely will deploy them. Otherwise, what else is there? A tree?

Think about the battle of Fallujah. No more than 3000 bad guys in a city of 300,000. They had nothing much more lethal than RPGs, mortars and machine guns – and the mortars didn't last long. Think about what it took to get them out. Even a fight on 1/3 of that scale is an enormous undertaking, but not hard to imagine. There's plenty of bustling towns of 50-100,000 people in the archipelago to the north of Australia. Each would be a brigade fight just to dislodge 500 combatants. At least.

The Chinese will try and destabilise the region before they waltz in and try and occupy various countries and regions. They might even get corrupt politicians to invite them in as "peacekeepers" (you can see that right now in the 'security' treaties they are trying to establish in the region). It could easily play out just like East Timor – which is why Australian Army officers are acutely aware of the benefits of armour. Australian military forces always have and always will be involved in securing these countries from any such instability where it's politically viable to do so. They may find themselves pitched against rebel military forces supported overtly or covertly by the Chinese. There may be a coup and/or counter-coups. Rebel groups and/or criminal gangs seizing territory. It's all happened before, and recently. There is absolutely scope for heavy fighting. Heavy machine guns in an urban setting are ridiculously lethal and absolutely the terrain you would wish to deploy heavy armoured forces – tanks and infantry. If you don't have them in the orbat, it's not a freaking option and the Chinese backed forces certainly have a better chance to win that one. And this is just these stabilisation campaigns we are talking about. It's not even direct military confrontation with Chinese forces. You turn up there with light forces and you are probably fooling yourself.

Australia can't face China in a land war. Of course not. Even assisting the US against a direct incursion in the Philippines, for example, would be difficult to do in a significant way, with land forces. But maybe, just maybe, we can stop the Chinese from destabilising the islands to the immediate north of Australia with separatist movements, coups and rebel forces. Something that's previously just happened naturally anyway. It won't take much for the Chinese to get the ball rolling again, so we can be fairly certain that we will need land forces of some scale to counter these developments, again. Lots of them. And yes sometimes, without too much in the way of heavy weapons use by the bad guys, it will require armoured forces to suppress and defeat these combatants. That's all the Australian Army was trying to achieve with its three relatively armoured Mech/Motorised Brigades prior to the DSR. Now not even that is all that achievable.

Yes stopping the destabilisation of the nations to the north would be a priority but that would require significant upstream engagement way beyond just defence engagement.

If there is a chance of a coup or the like speed to sure up a government would be key and the only way for that is lighter protected vehicles brigades possibly in Australias case bushmaster based much like the U.K. deployment to Serria leone.

If Australian was looking at the rest of the army then an equivalent to us Army Stryker brigades or even a U.S. marine style unit would be more appropriate and allow protected mobility.


There is a staggering difference between needing armoured vehicles and needing 45 tonnes plus heavy armoured vehicles in a heavy armoured divisions. The logistics tail to supporting such a force is staggering if you want to do it properly!

It’s this time 3!

You would need to double the size of the Australian army.


Australia has zero ability to deploy such a force even the U.K. has zero ability to deploy such a force to Europe.

If you are needing to go and retake a town/city then you have monumentally failed in your strategy. You prioritise where the crucial points are and get there first to ensure that it’s the other guys problem to get you out!

If and on the current plan you will have a heavy armoured brigade that is more than sufficient should the need ever arise to attack someone on land as it will only ever be in a coalition.
How often, though, would any nation want to deploy its entire force to a single location at the same time? Out of the total available force, the number required for attrition replacements, training, and simple maintenance would be substantial. Then add in the numbers you want to hold in reserve for the next battle or campaign, wherever and whenever that may occur.
If you wish to deploy to more than one location simultaneously the logistical challenges increase significantly.

The entire force cannot be a heavy armoured force for that reason.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

I'll come back to the previous couple of posts tomorrow, if I can. In the meantime, here's an interesting development in the OPV upguning saga:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... fura-opvs/
These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
wargame_insomniac

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

One also should take into account it has been the strategic aim of past governments that the ADF should have the capacity to be able a ready deployment force of one Brigade and one Battalion group concurrently hence why the original estimate to meet approx 1100 AFV

To meet this goal a combat force needs to be sufficient to support a deployed independent brigade and a battalion group would need at a minimum of two brigades and two more battalion groups or four brigades

Under Beersheba was 3 like Brigades in ready retraing and reset
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Mercator wrote: 05 May 2023, 14:12 I'll come back to the previous couple of posts tomorrow, if I can. In the meantime, here's an interesting development in the OPV upguning saga:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... fura-opvs/

Waste of time and money
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Mercator

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... nar-system

Australia is set to become the latest customer for the U.S.-developed Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System–Expeditionary, or SURTASS-E, a passive submarine detection system. The move to acquire SURTASS-E is the latest step in Australia’s ambitious undersea warfare modernization effort, the flagship program of which will see the Royal Australian Navy, or RAN, introduce its first nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarines, against the backdrop of increasing concerns about the Chinese submarine threat.

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) yesterday announced that the State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of an undisclosed number of SURTASS-E systems, at an estimated total cost of $207 million.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Mercator


R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

I generally turn off when Jacqui Lambie tries to be serious.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-ne ... 26532affbb

But I also hate it when governments talk about defence spending as a measure of GDP.

They talk about how defence has the biggest budget, but that is immaterial if the budget does not provide adequate funds to cover the needs of defence and what the government what the defence force to achieve

All well and good having a sovereign missile manufacturing but not if the defence for e cannot meet the government strategic needs

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Tempest414 »

And this is where chiefs of staff should be saying to government with X to can have Y but not Y&X but like here in the UK they say nothing but Yes Sir and then have the balls to complain and point fingers at the very holes they signed off
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
R686Little J

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by abc123 »

What's happening with the Arafura-class?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply