Australia's new armored force - What will it look like? Redbacks, Huntsmans, & Boxers.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2023
- Australia is to create an Armored Combined Arms Brigade - What will it look like? Will it be capable?
See related briefings:
AH-64E & UH-60M - Is Australia creating an Air Assault Brigade?: • AH-64E & UH-60M - Is A...
Australia's New Fighting Force - the ADF after the Defence Strategic Review:
• Australia's New Fighti...
AS21 Redback IFV - Why Australia chose it.: • AS21 Redback IFV - Why...
Made the right choice with the AS21 Redback but need MANY more of them.
The problem is that we were promised a fully mechanised army under the 1st Australian Division. Now we have one battalion instead of three, and we're still running Vietnam era M113s for the rest.
I wouldn't be surprised to see all M113s removed from regular service very soon. Simply not survivable on the battlefield.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yes, aluminium armor versus 155mm artillery or even Lancet style drones - not so good. We are learning a lot from Ukraine.
The first encounter with harsh reality came when the Leopards came into service. The 113s could not keep up with the Leopards, over ANY terrain . What is the point of a mechanized infantry screen if the tanks have to slow to an almost pedestrian pace" @@Strategy_Analysis
@@bruceinoz8002 Agree. That is why is say if there is to be an APC unit with this Armoured Brigade it cannot be equipped with M113s.
@@bruceinoz8002 to be fair the M113 simply was not designed for such things
They can still be useful as a battle taxi for the wounded or even mobile large mortars but not much more than that. Even in those roles they would burn more fuel than other options.
I think a comment on the Army's infantry battalions is useful here. The soon to be ORBAT appears to be shaping as: 1, 3, 5/7, 6, and 8/9 RAR as either Light, Motorised, or Mechanised Infantry battalions. 2nd Battalion is more a marine raider unit rather than a traditional infantry battalion, and the 4th Battalion has re-rolled as a Commando Regiment. So that would mean a force of 5 infantry battalions.
In the briefing I mention the replacement of the LSTs (Landing Ship Tanks), this should have been the LCHs. Also, perhaps a petition should be created to rename the Boxer as the "Funnel-web"?
Abrams could be the M1A2 Seppo Black Widow too.
all your eggs in the one basket what a great idea
I was disappointed when I heard that it was a South Korean model that was called the Huntsman ....... thats our baby spider!!!
Project Waler? That went well.
Integrated air-cover?
Integrated anti-air vehicles and toys?
"Interesting" that there is a proposal for SP artillery. In the mid 1980's, I, as newly-minted infantry SNCO, asked the then RSM of Artillery Corps why there was NO official interest in Self-propelled Artillery.
It's not doctrine", came the reply.
I would have thought that keeping 7 as a Light/Mech Btn would make more sense given its proximity to RAAF Edinburgh as it can be used as a rapid deployment force. Disbanding it and removing this capability seems very short sighted.
Great overview mate! Will be checking out the rest of the channel
As Boxer matures, I hope we’ll see more iterations such as APC or SHORAD versions procured, particularly as the ADF aim to have RBS-70 and Bushmaster PMV replaced this decade. The new Skyranger 35 seems very promising.
Glad to see your brilliant channel making your way here, keep up the good work!
Thanks Mate, much appreciated. I think the SHORAD Boxer might get a look in, or something like it.
Thank you. Onward and upward!
Keep the ASLAV for the reserves. It is amphibious which would be handy in the top end during wet season. Would like to see the 25 mm canon upgraded to the same 30 mm as the new vehicles.
It would be good having them in reserve. If the war in Ukraine shows one thing is that numbers matter and in a long conflicts you should have the capebility to pull old equipement out of storage.
We are seriously fighting to keep ASLAV in service with upgrades and placed in Reserve units...I feel the move of 7 RAR or relining is a detrimental move..we have spent nearly two billion in building, moving and getting 1 Armoured into Adelaide, with the 7 RAR capabilities...im very interested to see final location of 16 Regiment ( Air defence)... still to many unconfirmed stories on their new home , but as one can seriously hope Northern Australia is the logical move.
We have thrown around ideas of a Coast watch as a large number of us oldies are willing and even a proposal of a " home guard" only role is vital asset protection to free up regular and reserves for front line service.
I wonder if converting some of the ASLAVs for SHORAD duty, in a similar vein to their American cousins, the LAV-AD, would be another valid option. Especially if it would utilise rbs-70 instead of stinger or mistral (as per the lav-ad's us and expo models) - given the range and target cueing advantages.
Certainly all these high end capabilities warrant some serious protection.
@@sir_vix I hadn't seen the SHORAD option, that is a good idea. I was thinking of utilizing the ASLAV's ability to cross rivers in the top end without a bridge. The upgrade of the 25 mm canon was for common Ammo and programable Air burst (I also think all the naval 25 mm should be changed to 30 mm for this so they can defend against small boat swarms). Going on with your SHORAD idea, we have over 200 of these things, how about a version loaded with 4 or 8 SPIKE ER2 missiles as a tank hunting unit. The range of the Spike ER2 should allow them to engage tanks outside the tanks ability to return fire.
Sadly today I spoke with an Expert instructor of LAV family...even though we have nearly 150 LAV that would be considered in very good condition, the stupidity of our defence acquisition, means as they will not be on an inventory of spares and all mechanics trained on other vehicles it's easier to retire than keep in service. The proposals are keep some as " enemy" vehicles or put into Army Reserve armoured units..but sadly they want them retired and not even put into war stocks...donating to Ukraine has been proposal from current government with agreement by powers in defence...
For the M1150 Assault Breacher, myself and some others close to me refer to it as the Funnel Web. Not an official name obviously but fits within the theme of spider names (Huntsman, Redback).
Like it.
Yes and Army General's called Daddy Longlegs
Awesome video, IMO, Australia has a phenomenal amount of work in order to prepare for the threat that will likely present itself in the future.
Thank you. Much appreciated. Much to be done before 2030.
That work is to develop nuclear weapons
@@robertruggiero9999 no, thats not required - whats needed is an ABM capability, which is under development, a capable submarine threat, which we already have but will be enhanced with new SSN's, and strong airforce, which we have and are improving. Nuclear weapons are a massive money pit, far beyond the capability of our economy.
Enjoyed the content and enjoy seeing our Australian ally building up its military capabilities. Australia has defense companies growing in America too, we have EOS and Austal US building ships. 🇺🇸🤝🇦🇺
And look how good Austal is, the lemon that is the LCS and the weird expeditionary vessels
Not to mention west Australia, Philippines and Mobil Alabama have combined visa workforce
I never thought the Australian armed forces could be such an interesting topic; I've learned a ton from this channel and hypohistoical about our allies on the other side of the earth. I just wish they purchased more kit and ships. If anything pops of with the PRC, Australia is right up there as an important ally alongside South Korea and Japan.
Thank you. Much appreciated. More briefings to come on Australia's Navy and Air Force.
We have a population of just over 26 million, not all those pay tax.
For reference, Texas has over 30 million (2022 census)
We also have a huge coastal border and land mass (Texas is 268,596 square miles or 695,662 km and Australia is 2,941,300 square miles or 617,930 square kilometres, over ten times larger) to protect before you even think of "projecting power" elsewhere.
We just do not have the revenue to support "just purchasing more kit and ships", esp when you add the cost of manning and maintaining them. The population, while having a very strong national pride, is not a martial people that likes going to war. We won't start one, but will help finish one if need be.
And to be honest, as a citizen and ex soldier of 21 years, Vietnam was an experience we do not want to repeat, for anyone.
We've always fought above our weight, and probably always will, we will always help our friends, but our friends need to understand we have serious restrictions on what we can just buy.
@@iffracem I wasn't thinking Australia needed to spend $1 trillion a year or anything. As far as I could find, Australia's military spending equaled 1.98% of their 2021 GDP. The US spent equal to 3.48% of their GDP in 2021 on military spending. So if we're being charitable and rounding up, Australia is meeting the bare minimum of what members of NATO are required to spend. I know, Australia isn't in NATO, but it is a good measure of military commitment in an alliance countering a foe whose military build up is massive. And look, I'm assuming your country is much more sane than mine and actually has social programs like nationalized health care, which costs money. And of course my country is a hyper capitalist hellscape where one side of the political spectrum is utterly insane and thinks programs like nationalized healthcare are some sort of communist tyranny, so we have more room in the budget for guns.
At the same time, to be honest, a great deal of Australia's national security is subsidized by the US taxpayer. 10 fleet carriers, hundreds of F-35s, nuclear subs out the wazoo, all of this is extremely expensive and is a major reason why we in the US don't have benefits that are considered standard in every other Western country. So from that perspective, I don't think it's too much to ask that other democracies around the world pitch in more.
@@Jon.A.Scholt Our issue isn't spending, we have no problem spending big. Our problem is manpower. To loosely quote the satirical show about our government, The Hollowmen, "Why would you bother being a diesel mechanic for the army at 70 grand a year, give or take, when you could do the same job at Rio Tinto for double that?". For the skilled professionals our forces need, private industry (particular the miners who command top dollar) pays so much better we end up losing everybody after their several year stint is up. We have poorer retention than a leaky bladder. We literally couldn't man more navy ships even if we built them.
I dont intent to lecture you on your own country, but i want to point out military spending isn't why you don't have nationalized healthcare. All up, the US is the biggest per capita spender on healthcare, 50% more than the next highest country, Switzerland. Even your government and compulsory spending is higher than the out of pocket and government spending of the next highest. Your federal government spends 2.5 Trillion-ish per year from mandatory spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; not to mention spending from states. If you want nationalized healthcare you need to make the system more efficient, not throw more money at it. Also maybe look at staying healthy and not having the highest obesity rates in the developed world.
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Damn dude, you took that waaaaay too personally. I don't think I was even half as critical (or much at all) about Australia as I was about the US. But instead you decided to get in your feels and just take cheap shots about America' s obesity (very original, by the way).
But I won't take any random cheap shots. It''s certainly unrealistic to expect Australia to have a massive military. But there are certainly ways to enhance their lethality that don't require a massive increase in manpower. For examples you don't need thousands of pilots to man more F-35s. You'd need more men for maintenance, but it wouldn't be some extreme number. And if you're having trouble retaining your personnel, pay them more.
I'm glad Australia is doing what they are doing, but the bottom line is western democracies have taken for granted for decades that the US Navy would always just be there to defend their commerce. Every other Western democracy gutted their military spending after the cold war, expecting the US to just carry on and pay for the tab. The US has essentially subsidized their national defense for over 30 years; it's time for others to step up, finally pay their share and meet the current threat the same way they did during the cold war. I don't think that's too much of an ask.
Also, I find it funny you said you didn't intend to lecture me on my country and then proceeded to do just that.
The redback is amazing piece of equipment wish I could see the next sides of it, did get to watch it drive of the trailer and come into the factory 🇦🇺
Nice. Always better to see things "in the flesh".
Great content mate, no fluff. Keep it up👍
Thanks mate. Much appreciated.
S.Korea is killing it with their military exports. Crazy how a small country is exporting and creating a presence in the arms market.
Yes, they are doing very well. While small in size, S.K's population and level of technology explains a lot.
Thx. I reckon there’s a significant gap between Boxer and Bushmaster !? 6x6 French Griffon ,or , similar , call it scrub master ,! (Aussie made of course!) , do an amphibious version ,too, Swampmaster!
Heaps more Boxer variants would help! Mortar,155mm,etc,etc
Interesting varitations on the names. But the Australian Army usually names their vehicles after the local snakes and spiders. ("Hawkei Anacondas" (aka. death adder), Tiger, Taipan, and Bushmaster are snakes. Redback, and Huntsman are spiders).
"Scrubmaster" and "Swampmaster" could likely work as variants on the name - just as with the Blackhawk and Seahawk. But if made as a totally different vehicle, it would likely be named from our wide selection of dangerous fauna... (It's not like there's a shortage to choose from).
I am Not Sure If thats what the comment ist referring to but many Versions already exist including the 155mm
Excellent video, mate
Thanks, Mate. Much appreciated.
could always give the ASLAVs and M113s to the reserves, I'm sure the hunter river lancers would enjoy an upgrade from the Bushmaster.
I can see some ASLAVs remaining in service. I don't think the M113s would bring any value to the Reserves, given what the government has suggested about its future role.
@@Strategy_Analysis ASLAVs are verry much at the end of their life after many decades of hard use. I understand that armoured units may intergrate a squadron PMV-L as light recon role.
@@cc93691 Thanks for that. Yes, have heard the PMV-L might be integrated into Boxer units, given the Troop structure might change.
@@Strategy_Analysiscould you cover off on your take on the future role of the reserves?
A very intersting video. The reason 1AR and 7RAR moved to Adelaide was that they can't operate up north in the wet season and that training areas were hundreds of Km away, additionally Darwin was not seen as a good posting and soldiers would dischrge after their initial service. The M1A2 will be too heavy for outback bridges limiting their training activities.
5RAR were changing to a littoral manouvre unit and if it is to like 2RAR will only have one reinforced rifle company and a support company, including small boat platoon.
It will be interesting to see if 5th Aviation Regt will receive any Blackhawks, if they do it will possibly be only one squadron allowing 6th Aviation Regt to have two squadrons
I have to wonder if additional batches of the Redback will be procurred in the future as I have not read when the M113A4s will be withdrawn from service.
The Army no longer has "reach" after 3 RAR was re-rolled from a conventional parachute battalion leaving a dangerous strategic loss, not only for the country but also the region, (especially as 2 Cdo Regt don't like doing "land" jumps).
At the end of it all, Army have released four defence plans in the last eleven years - with another coming shortly
Exactly. Well said. When 5/7 RAR left Holsworthy for Darwin one thing quickly became clear, they couldn't use the armoured elements during the wet. Plus the training ranges for the Armour are back down south or east. AOF 2028 and DSR are very different in their approach and I can only guess what the next structure proposal will be.....
Excellent as usual.
Thank you. Greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the vids, its nice to know what our armed forces are being equipped with.
Thank you. More to come.
Great clip as usual. What are your thoughts about the need for a 'Security' unit within that structure: covering surveillance, perimeter defence, counter-special forces, tactical air defence, cyber defence, etc.? Dispersion will also need to be a consideration.
Thank you. Great question. I will try to address those important questions in a briefing.
Air defence certainly looks light to say the least.
Absolutely. I'll be covering that soon.
As I understand it, 7 Bn is to be disbanded and amalgamated to create 5/7 RAR. As the RAR moves from 9 bn to only eight, I assume then the ARMD BDE will have 2 Inf Bn (AS21) + ARMD REGT (M1A2 Sep 3) as the three manoeuvre elements. The remainder of the ARMD BDE elements will be mechanised with Arty (AS9), Recon (Boxer), Engr (M1150), Aviation (AH-64) and a Combat Support Bn. The other BDE's will receive the remining share of Inf Bn each and role as either Amphibious or Air Assault. The result will see a pretty hollow Army as the sole ARMD BDE will be a one-shot capability, not capable of rotation for follow-on deployments (so short of WWIII can't see it ever being deployed overseas - except as a Bn Battle Group).
Back when I was a lad, 5/7 RAR existed, as did 2/4 and 8/9 :)
Prior to the DSR, under the AOF 2028 model, 4 RAR was to be reraised and located in Darwin. Clearly this was a pipe dream given the retention numbers especially in RAINF and the fact that most RAR BN's were running with 2 rifle coys + support coy which none were near full strength. DSR aside, the Army's problem right now is numbers and retention. We are soon to be an army of E5's (CPL's) and E6's (SGTs) with no operational experience except those who have left the ARA and put out to pasture in Choc world.
@@matt_anita-janeadventuresit’s just like post-Vietnam really, it’s quiet operationally and manning is an issue, at least we have a decent budget unlike post Vietnam
Great brief, thank you. 🇨🇦 Veteran
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Great video! There is not a lot of effort to cover Australian military procurement and force structure, particularly in light of the defence review which I commend you for. I hope command will go for your second force structure; we can't afford to split up our niche armoured capability like we did with the "armoured cavalry squadrons". I would like to see your hypothesis for a 3rd brigade force structure format. We know the 1st will be armoured, the 2nd light infantry/air assault, what about a 3rd brigade? Or do you believe a 3rd brigade will be cut? I hope they don't cut infantry numbers. If they do, they're mad! We need double the battalions not less. I believe 1 or 2 battalions could be rerolled to predominantly work with partner forces, be it in a format similar to the new British ranger regiment. This would provide littoral capability, very similar to the role coast watchers played in WW2. Equipping these units with anti-ship missiles and local air defence would generate formidable capability.
Thank you, much appreciated. You raise the question about the other regular brigade, 7th Brigade in Brisbane. At this stage, I don't think it will be cut. I will do a briefing on it soon.
I have a bit of an issue with the Boxer being a recce vehicle - the thing is the size of a small house!
Interesting vid👍any mention on unmanned vehicles for ADF future plans?
Haven't heard of anything significant for the Army, but certainly for the RAAF there are prospects.
Finally we got some logistics correct with the acquired Redbacks 🕷 i wonder if south Korea had a 8x8 vehicle that could have gone to tender
I very hopefully expect more orders for redback and AS9, as we now have the production line here. just a budget timing thing, I hope. I fully agree to keep ALL the Aslav's in service or at least reserve, way to many road closures lately due to floods (even in Vic). I think the choice of Redback was the right one, out of the choices, but VERY BIG, Very HEAVY. At least it is integrated and tested for the systems, unlike the Boxer. If the Ukraine has shown any of us anything, mass over capability maters. Wars stocks of basic munitions, missiles, etc, will make the most difference. We have to face we have a limit to our defence budget. It would be great if we spent less on cancelled, stupidly unnecessarily altered systems, and a little bit more on credible deterrence. I am all for having the second best destroyer in the world (maybe), but only 3? With only an hours missile load? You cannot reload MK41's at sea. As you can't move 55+ ton vehicles in our North during wet season. If we introduced a bill to parliament, that forbade ex defence senior members from taking a related industry job for 4 years, we might have some better decisions.
don't forget the cardboard drones!
I've spent the last two decades recycling pizza boxes for this, and I couldn't be prouder. Slava Ukraini!
Contrary to other comments I think the amount of additional IFVs are carefully chosen because of the type of potential conflicts we can anticipate - there will never be an all out land war against China either on the home soil or elsewhere, and the force projection of one battalion is more than appropriate. Having training and operation expertise on the equipment will also mean in wartime scenarios it's much easier to scale up the units through more equipments.
This is perfect reflection of our strategy on defence spendings, 2% GDP, no more no less.
They ought to come in handy for the next Cassawary war
Given the drastic reduction in Redback purchase numbers, methinks that the ASLAV fleet will be retained and re-purposed as APC's for at least a decade. A 'smallish' upgrade cost for the ASLAV fleet should add the necessary ability to fulfill the role until further Govt budget funds are allocated. I suspect this decision has already been made.....
As I mention in the briefing, I think its a possibility. Not a lot, and possibly more as an APC as you says. However, one commentator here has suggested they are worn out, and he may well be right.
Agreed. Cutting the AS21 order forces the ASLAV to stick around, although likely with a major upgrade to capability. 30mm is an obvious upgrade.
The Amphibious capability seems useful for a defensive role in the far north, but most nations have moved away from this due to the tradeoff of weight vs survivability.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah they have had a long service life of 28 years+ but they are still a relevant platform (just ask the USMC) and with some 'chump change' funding to replace the engines, armament and electronics, we could retain them for at least a decade, re-purposed as APC's. Just look how long we have kept the M113's in service with upgrades.....60 years now??? Its a logical and cheaper option, short term.
@@wimmeraparanormal6581 Certainly worth a serious look. I was an M113 crewman, I know it well!
@@AndyViant If they are to remain in regular service, significant upgrades would be required. Its tactical and strategic mobility would fit with the government's stated objectives for the ADF.
Great briefing but why base an armoured brigade in Darwin when it was decided that the armoured brigade up there couldn’t train properly due to the rainy season. Further the us marines have ditched their M 1’s because marines a littoral. Thirdly if the armoured brigade needs to deploy north then there is a rail link which could be taken over by the government which could deploy and armoured brigade north as one fighting unit. It could also deploy to Tennant creek or Kathrine to deploy by road or air from Tindal. What defence should be focused on is establishing a logistics hub centred on Kathrine as a combined rail, road, airhead. Another established at possibly MT Isa connected to Weipa by all weather road and standard gauge south and then look at a third base within driving distance from Curtain. Port Headland could provide port facilities that could support any western deployment into the Indian Ocean with Curtain supplying air cover. Darwin is fine for a marine type force, but the reality is any deployment will be to the North west with Cocos island providing a forward base with HIMAS and supporting protection!
Yes the AUSLAV is old but the latest version is air-portable - which I believe is far more important than an armoured brigade.
Cheers
Thanks Ken. I understand your points. The Government has said that the Armoured Combined Arms Brigade must be able deploy via amphibious craft from Darwin or Townsville. Troops will take time to deploy to Darwin from Adelaide, and it is far better to have all units within a brigade co-located. Maybe this is not what will be done. We should know soon enough.
@@Strategy_Analysis obviously the government ( or the ADF) don’t realise that a brigade could deploy from Adelaide by rail to Brisbane, Darwin or Perth as a full brigade in about 4 days - if practiced. Townsville would require a standard gauge line to achieve the same.
I remember how long it took to deploy 2 CAV to Darwin from Holsworthy and the army never had the capability to deploy 1 Armd from Pucka with its organic assets - never enough heavy lift!
Any smart opponent would know that Darwin is a key target and would need to be destroyed & they would have long range capability to achieve that.
WW2 showed that, and every exercise i ever participated in proved how hard it was to provide logistical support north.
To put it simply 3brigade should be airborne assault to rapidly take and hold ground, then amphibious to secure a landing area for the heavies.
1st brigade amphibious with a structure and equipment similar to the marines - no tanks! 7 brigade light infantry to provide backup to either 3 or 1 & 9th to have the armoured brigade including the tracked artillery. And dare I say it both 7 & 9 could be both ARA & ARES
Two new developments since the video.
1. Great ally Germany cancelled their order for 100 units of Australia made Boxer. The production is likely to go to Germany or Hungary.
2. K9 will have new 60km range shells available from next year. ROKA (Republic of Korea Army) is finalising their trial and will order the new rounds shortly (they have been testing it for 3 years and rumour says it has completed the trial as success). There will be dumb rounds (unguided) and guided rounds.
On a side note, ROKA is to adopt new 5.56 and 7.62 Nato rounds from 2023 or 2024 (depending on the production) after 3 years of 300,000 rounds testing. It has 1.5 times the velocity and 2 times the effective range (over 1,000m) and there are video of 762 penetrating 8mm of RHS penetration (sufficient for all BMPs BRMs) from 100m range. US is currently testing it as well. Korea is unlikely to export it to countries other than US but given Australia is buying so much from them, asking would not hurt.
Thanks for the update.
We should be getting the full 400 vehicles!
We need to remember our history. How often did we use tanks in our region during WW2? I think the choice to limit the number of armoured vehicles is correct. What I would like to see is an increase in Army helicopter capabilities, and air resupply capabilities. These are the capabilities we will need to fight in our region, as we learnt in Vietnam, and on the Kakoda Trail.
@@jamesmaddox7507, well seeing we just had soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan fir over 20 years and during WW2 we had soldiers fighting in Egypt and Lybia, all of which involved tanks and amoured vehicles, I'd say our soldiers need all the protection they can get, don't you? But we need to increase our military including helicopters and AFVs!
@paulsandford3345 Hey Paul, in a perfect world we could afford whatever we want. The reality is that our defence budget is tight, infact, it is tightening, as such we have to prioritise. The whole point of the Defence Stratigic Review is to point our defence forces in a new direction, our region.
@@jamesmaddox7507, maybe it's not as tight as we're being told, seeing how the defence minister has just blown 3.9 million on fights this year to go to football matches? Just a thought!
@@paulsandford3345 Yeah, I was talking in real terms with our dollar dropping and increased inflation. But we could debate the changes that need to be made to our public service system indefinitely.
Oh I do hope it looks pretty.
Is there any armor in adelaide? Tank/apc/ifv
It is time we purchased far more of all the equipment and what about surface to air to protect the brigade
Indeed air defence is critical. I'm working on a briefing covering that.
Three brigade I like how it's the maneuver elements of a 15,000 strong division leaving 6,000 base of fire of that maneuver elements I like how each brigade is a impartial University
I like how 9,000 is the skeleton crew amount of each commanding tipe I like how the three brigade system is 1/5 of a lieutenant generals 45,000 army an how each type of commander pool is 9,000
I like that it's an armoured bridge of command states
We have made significant progress over the last 20 yrs we are making significant progress
BOXER CRV does not have Iron Fist APS and will not, it was found to be too heavy to integrate and still meet vehicle stability requirements. Also, the first batch of CRV vehicles from Germany do not have Spike ATGMs and will be a very long time until the do. They rely of dismounts for anti-armour duties.
Thanks for that clarification. There were to, but the requirement was removed. Yes, the 25 Block 1s don't have turret-mounted Spike, as you say. The remainder will.
@@Strategy_Analysis Good video tho mate
Sorry, but currently no progress on that front. NO active protection for the near future for boxer. And no interest from Germany anymore, now that we (correctly) chose Redback. They changed the requirement on Boxer to just having the system as a dismount one, because it was too hard. @@Strategy_Analysis
@@cc93691 Thanks, much appreciated.
@@michaelpowell6023 Thanks for the info.
GREATEST!
I've always wondered why western armed forces (the US or Australia) don't have a self propelled gun-mortar like China's PLL-05. Seems like our amphibious forces could use some mobile firepower when conventional artillery is not an option. I know the US is looking at the Extended Range Mortar System, but that lacks many of the major advantages of a self propelled gun-mortar.
Agree. There is significant utility in a self-propelled gun-mortar system of 120mm. I cover the PLA systems in my series of briefings on the PLA Ground Force formations. You might find them interesting.
M10 Booker.
Quite a lto of Western countries do use SP 120 mm mortars, e.g. Finland's AMOS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS or Poland's RAK en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M120_Rak
@@krossbolt4100 the M10 is not portable enough for light units. And it's definitely not artillery.
The US military doctrine uses air power over SPGs so not much money is put into them.
Great video, still find it hard to believe that 129 IFV's will only be enough to equipment a single battalion, unless it will have something like 6 rifle companies or 8 vehicles per platoon. Usually it's somewhere between 30-50 vehicles per battalion. That would mean that only a third of total vehicles will be active (by my calculation)
Buddy you just dont like "robbing Peter to pay Paul" but with Labor being in govt,. with all their social programs(which do help a lot of needy people) and Labor's commitment to SSN's, and maintaining a lot of the former govt's acquisitions, -you've just got to cut your coat, according to your cloth!
They stated that they are ordering enough to have a small redundancy, they will also have training vehicles, command posts and joint first. They don't just build enough for one exact battalion, how would they replace losses from damage and maintenance? 129 for one battalion is correct.
Thank you. As others have mentioned, a significant number are required for training purposes, and not just for the vehicle crews but also the mechanics. Also, the attrition reserve is designed to essentially provide enough spare vehicles to replace loses over the life of the vehicle. This is why the number seems so big for only 1 Battalion.
More than likely the order WILL be expanded over time. Particularly if the first vehicles prove to be better than expected. Depends on nearby international threats and political pivoting.
@@krossbolt4100I agree, once the first 129 are rolled out of the factory, we may hopefully see a follow on order. We need atleast two mech battalions.
This is all well and good and actually pretty impressive for what it is. But the fact remains that the AUS Army has little more than a single combined arms division in terms of its active combat strength. At barest minimum that should be doubled, with a corresponding increase in the size of the active reserve. Knowing that this is the West, however, I would settle for a 4th combat brigade while adding 10,000 to the active reserve.
If all 450 vehicles had been built then how many units would have been equipped and has the 50 mortar 120mm carriers still in acquisition phase and the 50 amphibious assault vehicles.
The yanks have developed a bushmaster 40mm system could this be fitted at a later date when you consider the original K21 vehicle has a 40mm cannon.
I think putting everything in the Eastern states is a bit of a mistake - South Australia is more central , and has a massive range out North of Port Augusta. with rail access to West, North and Eastern Australia, plus Edinburgh RAAF base it is far safer in terms of logistics.
Just a comment on the Redback (apart from needing more). I question that 129 is only enough for 1 Bn. As they hold a section each, being in an Inf Bn in my past this doesn't make sense - if you add it up a Company needs around 14-15, 3x rifle companies + support Coy and BHQ (say 14 more) that is 56-60 maybe - so looks like enough for 2x Bn's. I think 3x Inf Bn's would be better...and a new replacement APC for those death trap M113's, remanufactured from the Vietnam war would be great...
Fair question. Remember they also need vehicles for training, for armoured crew, infantry and electrical and mechanical engineers. On top of this they need vehicles for attrition reserve. Kept in storage to replace damaged vehicles.
@@Strategy_Analysis Well a current M113 Troop lifts a company, and has 13 vehicles when we were doing Mech Inf work. If we add a vehicle it is 42 vehicles for 3x Companies. Add 5-6 for BHQ (most of them will not be used directly in combat. So easily 2x BN's worth + spares, training vehicles etc. etc. Which makes sense, so they will most likely have a traditional BDE BG formation with this size fleet.
Should the ADF M2 12.7mm guns be replaced with a modern 12.7 mm weapon such as the GAU 19 ?
10:00 - question: wouldn’t your second armoured combined arms brigade structure still call for two infantry battalions? Both the Redback and Boxer are designed to carry 8 dismounts, so each four of them could carry a reinforced platoon sized infantry force & hence a squadron of say 16 vehicles could carry a light company of infantry.
I this is the case, then isn’t another force structure to effectively brigade together three CARs, two infantry battalions, the artillery regiment (and of course other support units). That way, using the ‘ready, readying and reset’ process, this brigade could provide one - perhaps two - combined arms battle groups to support any littoral expeditionary force at any time.
What am i missing?
Hopefully the redback deal doesn't interfer with boxer deals,
With air defence a issue I consider the redback as something with the initiative to reverse engineer the Gepard an ground to air sidewinder missile system that Germany use is interesting if you could put a sidewinder of a sea sparrow missile for land purpose it could offer protection to cities under a missile attack
I consider semi trailer system in the cities with side winder in the back of it as a delivery system of missile to strategic defensive positions that'd keep between invading vessels an key infrastructure, they are not going to strategically use missile in the bush, the way I see it for the cities they don't need off-road vehicles to intercept missile around the city that makes room for something like that with a semi trailer that could do above 80km to avoid radar detection.
I’d use a dedicated vehicle for air defence. Land drover and trailer, dedicated command vehicles.
In terms of air defence, we finally have a test launch of NASAMS. We also have the number one company in the world for anti drone tech and defence, but no orders from our Gov? Sold to all our allies, on many others..?
Where are we planning on using these ?
I’d start in Canberra . I’d just completely flatten the place and start at Parliament and see where to go from there, just wing it.
Salute you Sir, 920 liked and subscribe ages ago.
Thank you, much appreciated.
Jesus. "Armoured fist" god damn.
No dedicated anti drone systems no dedicated drone platforms no dedicated electronic warfare platforms perhaps the red back does need expanded capabilities integrated within
So, where’s the trailer for the Esky’s?
No mention of AVLB, ADA or recovery vehicles?
As I mentioned in the video, this briefing covered the main armoured combat vehicles in the brigade. The AVLBs, ARVs, and AEVs were covered in an earlier briefing: KF41 Lynx or AS21 Redback.
Alas, the drone army is needed to protect the brigade from other drone armies.
I understand that the 3 brigades were equal in capabilities and worked on a ready for deployment and in training cycle, allowing for one brigade to be deployable at a moments notice.
If we are to have 3 uniquely different brigades ie armour, air assault and other… how does a ready for deployment brigade work? You can’t have all ready for deployment at all times .. or is that the plan?
Yes, the idea was to be able to maintain one brigade deployed. So one deployed, one preparing for deployment, and one reconstituting after deployment. That will no longer be possible. So either you can still commit a full brigade to an operation, but that operation will not be sustainable, or you commit an armoured battalion group (so roughly 1/3 the size), but you are able to maintain that level of effort. One or the other.
@@Strategy_Analysis thank you for your answer. It seems that our masters are going for a “idealistic” looking army setup … in preference to practical. Not sure if that is wise.
Good job Australia 🇦🇺 🇺🇸
I think you missed the make.
The investment in 1X to be the littoral battalion and joint operations with the USMC is to great to ignore.
Some interesting concepts here, Unlike the Russians I do believe we could keep the maintenance & logistic needs of such technical forces at high operating capacity but you said it yourself, Do we have enough to make a difference.
I haven't seen the breakdown of the 129 Redbacks to be procured, but for the Boxers the critical support vehicles are included. Interestingly, the ambulance version of the Boxer is only an option for Australia.
The Russians have been extremely successful with their equipment and tactics recently despite what our lying media and leaders tell us about their capabilities. Go figure?
Haven't we just seen in Ukraine that armored formations need an adequate amount of organic infantry? One battalion seems a bit slim. At least they'll have a good number of engineering vehicles.
Yes. One of the failures of the Battalion Tactical Group (BTG) was lack of organic infantry.
@@Strategy_Analysis I was flabbergasted by the ineptitude of the initial Russian invasion. They could have combined the airborne troops and BTG's into task forces with enough infantry, or even seconded the lightly armed Rosgvardia troops into supervised security details. Instead it appeared to be a shambolic chaos without central direction. They have learnt painful lessons.
@@martinsmith9054 Russians went in with OMON forces ffs. It was never a serious invasion, they were obviously pushing for a negotiation which they pretty much got an agreement until the UK/US forced the Ukrainians to go back on it (which the Ukrainians are seriously paying the price for now). It was a political decision not a military one (Putin gets a lot of criticism for it). Their losses are seriously over overexaggerated, a good example of that being Hostomel, 200 VDV took the airbase and secured it until ground forces arrived - took 17 losses, yet in the western press you get propaganda that they were wiped out.
@@MS-wz9jm I'm aware of that, but military prudence should have suggested that all OMON and other Rosgvardia troops be integrated into the BTG's for their own protection. Since they were lightly armed and the BTG's were short of infantry it was an obvious solution. It also seems pretty clear there was a lot of incompetence in the Russian officer corps. Truth is the Syrian Tiger Force fought better in their campaign against ISIS in the Euphrates river valley, which apparently taught the Russian General Staff little. They've had to learn the hard way in Ukraine with many unnecessary losses and a late mobilisation. That being said the Ukrainians are now making an equally serious mistake pressing an obviously failed offensive while incurring heavy, if not catastrophic losses. For the record I subscribe to the realpolitik school of thought as elucidated by John Mearshiemer. He said as far back as 2015 offering Ukraine NATO membership would cause a war.
Umm sounds like we got a Russian pleaser in here..
Need I remind you of the Donets removed incident… a whole battalion of IFVs and tanks wiped out lol
How many redbacks do you have in a battalion, my count is as follows based on US setup: 12 vehicles + 2 command vehicles per company, 3 companies a battalion, therefore 42 vehicles. From 129 this would make 3 battalions unless you are using the rule of 3, 42 ready for combat, 42 being prepared and 42 in maintenance.
There will also be vehicles in the Support Company and Battalion HQ. The number of vehicles for training will be high as you need them vehicle crew, Infantry, and maintenance training.
@@Strategy_Analysis support vehicles would be hawki and M113 like the US striker battalions employ their support vehicles. Also why wouldn't the ADF just swap out the ASLAV's for the Redbacks in the current armoured cavalry regiments as the point of getting the redbacks was so we didn't have battlefield taxis supporting the M1A2 but a combat vehicle that could support it in a combat engagement
Looks like they forgot anti air/drones.
Would appear so.
Yep - _and_ there doesn't appear to be organic indirect fire, or drone carriers
Edit: tell a lie, the Redback can mount the grenade launcher
Australia need a full armoured division
What about HIMARS?
HIMARS won't be organic to this brigade. They will no doubt support it, but will be separate. I'll cover HIMARS in the Army's new structure soon.
It only seems like enough heavy equipment for tops 2 brigades
Actually, only enough for 1 brigade.
So instead of buying enough SPG's,
Australia bought a handful of SPG's with a handful of Tracked Ammo resupply vehicles to accompany those SPG's...
Surely it would have been better to buy more actual SPG's without ARV's than to have too few SPG's.
This use of the 129 IFVs makes no sense. The normal orbat requirement for these vehicles is 44 per battalion. The British had 58 warriors, so why is 129 Redbacks only enough for 1 battalion? You could have 2x fully equipped battalions, each with 3x Armoured Infantry Companies (14x Redback) and a support company with fully mounted anti-armour, mortar, and recce platoons. You would also have enough for Combat Engineers platoons and Artillery Forward Observers.
If it carries 8 troops each so 1 per section, 2 per squad, 8 per platoon, up to 30 per company. Not all are IFV, some command ,ambulance, recover, mortar(maybe) then a battalion is 90 with command that could already put nearly at 100.
I admit that is more likely 100 vehicles, however it still means 129 redback variants starts to look very close to not enough.
My guess is that talked about 350 would be a minimum for 3 battalions but 450 starts to look like 4 battalions.
@thomasb5600 No. As before you are describing an APC company in an Australian Army Armoured Cavalry Regiment who's purpose is to hold the apcs for supporting battalions.
A normal Armoured or Mechanised battalion has between 31 vehicles for Russian doctrines armies and 44 for US/NATO armies. That is 2x vehicles in battalion HQ and 3x companies with 14 vehicles each. 3x platoon of 4 vehicles each. Extra vehicles are needed if the battalion has a Support company with Anti-tank, mortar and recce platoons. Then you factor in engineer platoon s and Forward Observers.
129 vehicles would equip 2x battalions easily.
@@tonyaughney8945 so you think they are only going to be used in mechanised Battalions, care to share where information says that.
As I see it they are more likely to be used as part of a Cavalry Regiment.
@@thomasb5600 they should only be used in Mechanised battalions. Either way, 129 vehicles are enough for 2x battalions.
Why not the CV90. Best of the best!
It was too expensive for what it offered.
6:30 RIP Tasmania😂
10:50 This is the crux of Australia's defense conundrum.
The conflict in Ukraine has shown that brigade-sized formations are chewed up in a matter of days or weeks by the sheer intensity and ferocity of modern combat.
A single brigade is not enough.
The main problem Western militaries face today is that the enormous rise in the cost of military hardware, as it becomes ever-more packed with technology and capability, leads to a continuous reduction in the number of any given type of hardware. And what you end up with is a military that is very capable on paper but in reality it can't afford to take losses and if it does it can't replace them. Combine this with a military-industrial complex that is incapable of delivering the quantity needed to replace losses, not to mention, expand the armed forces and you end up in a really bad situation (like Ukraine).
Bro take a course on audio leveling, content is there all is there you need to fix your audio levels. Normalize it :) Cheers
Thanks for the feedback. Will do. Soon as I get an opportunity. Unfortunately this isn't my only gig.
Funnel Web is needed.
Absolutely.
how abut looking in to how undefended wa is
Seriously, by the time "Albo the great" has finished they will be lucky to have trucks....
Waiting for the armoured vehicle to be called the taipan hahaha
Yes, another dangerous Australian animal.
@@Strategy_Analysisand for our water drones boats if we do go forward with it
Deffs called the box jellyfish
@@markmacqueen9666 Box jellyfish, Blue-ringed octopus, and Stone fish. Plenty of choices.
@@Strategy_Analysis lots of choices and fits our personality as a country naming shit like that
Time for hovercraft both small medium and large littoral ones they do not care about beach conditions or tides they can also be operated in heavily flooded areas with impunity and without a theatre air defence system basing this far forward is a joke.
Are you f!@#ing joking? I was a CSM in 1 Bde when it was the mechanised Bde! The ADF is just reinventing the same wheel.
I could be wrong, but it does look like that.
Will we be getting some new short range air defences? I believe the Boxer comes in an air defence variant called the Sky ranger.
I haven't seen anything suggesting Australia will purchase an Air Defence version of the Boxer.
I heard the boxer has an Anti-drone laser it it either being tested or fitted.
We live on an island. Build boats.
Are you best friends with Perun?
Never met him. Of course I know of him.
I hope your channel also grows beyond the dizzy heights of 4k. As an Aussie I love me some home grown channels.
Speaking of Perun, what is your professional opinion or thoughts regarding his analysis?
Would you like to see your channel grow like his has?
@@nastygollum Thank you, much appreciated.
Cool now we have enough armour to last two days in a real war .
If we mobilised at half WW2 levels we’d need equipment for 26 divisions.
Hmmmm, at the end of WWII Australia was the fourth strongest military in the world. It’s a little difficult in peacetime to make comparisons with that period.
"Australia's new armored force - What will it look like?" Small, very, very small and without the capacity for sustained operations. Very professional but small. JMO.
Yes. Any fight will need to be over quickly.
I'm no militarty analyst so my opinion means nothing, it seams we've gone back and forth over decades between a force capable of defending the homeland and a force capable of projecting power. Being able to project power makes us more usefull to more poweful allies, but if SHTF and we're on our own we might be FUBAR without a formidable homeland defence. Or we might be FUBAR anyay without help, that's why people get the big dollars to work this shit out. I'm sure if we could afford a military comparible to the USA we would already have it.
and what site them in the cannabis regiment in darwin? massive drug issue for more than a decade
Finally a step in the right direction , but youd think we'd have to keep the ASLAVs in service .
We are looking at it all wrong.. We don’t want to be fighting an enemy on our own land, we should be looking at stopping them before they get here..
So what happened to all the 400 modified M113s and all the ASLAVs? Bidi they jnunk them?
I can see at least some ASLAVs remaining in service.
A few things could happen with M113A4 we give more to Ukraine.
-Some to reserve units.
- More robotic drones and drone launchers
- targets
- scrap metal.
Apparently we are not allowed to sell.
UMMM theh self propelled 155 MM guns have been cancelled
The second order has, not the first order for 30.
@@Strategy_Analysis awesome I must not have read it right,
We can't put all our egs in one basket of HiMars combined arms is much better Ive said for years we needed at least half as many Self propelled 155 guns as we had towed.
30 will have to do and I think its 48 HiMars now if Iat least read that one right :)
But we do ned to develop a Home grown and built medium to long range Missile system of our own something in the order of between a Harpoon and
Tomahawk
No worries. The new Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is an improvement over the Harpoon. Interestingly, there may be a land-based version as well.
Hate to break this to you ladies, but based on the small number of units the Australian army is getting of the above equipment..... the only mayor operation the Australian army will be able to perform is a pretty parade! LOL
Big fat armoured vehicles are just sitting ducks now.
First up; I really enjoy your channel, you present lots of detail and well reasoned analysis.
My gripe is with the previous Liberal/National Government AND the current Labor Government. There seems to be minimal strategic thinking in what our Army ought to be. Surely, defence of the homeland is its primary objective. Who in the short to medium term (out to 2050 at least) is going to land forces on Australia’s shores that will necessitate the use of tanks? Surely we need an agile, highly mobile force with lots of IFVs supported by light and heavy armament (the Korean AS-9s look very useful). Where and how are we going to use rocket systems with thousands oh km range? And finally, 75 tanks and three or four ships capable of carrying one at a time out into the Pacific or Indian Oceans - this is just 🐂💩 Just reads of toys for the boys. Give our tanks to Ukraine where they might do some good and purchase more Bushmasters, Boxers and Redbacks, supported by lots more Huntsman mobile artillery.
Keep up the good work with your channel.
Thank you. Much appreciated. Well a new plan seems to be in the works. We'll have to see how long it lasts.
It would make sense to have an aggressive defense. Light and mobile being the key.
Maybe the Redback or Boxer could be looked at with a higher calibre cannon to provide almost a light tank option instead of a heavy tank core.
Strikemaster, Hawkei having AA or long range tickets could be done too.
For what? for the great emu war?
Shorads are desperately and dangerously lacking. Kamikaze drones are flooding the battlefield everywhere and where is the shorads?
In any future conflict the Australian Army is involved in, drone attacks on its vehicles are highly likely. A current deficiency I would say.
The Poles have a radar guided .50 cal gatling gun for drones. Cheap, mobile and effective for the smaller types of kamikaze drones if put on a suitable chassis.
@@martinsmith9054 Yes something like that is needed. 12.7mm would be the minimum I think.
@@Strategy_Analysis the Russians appear to be debating the same issue. The venerable Shilka is seen as ideal by some, while others point to the existing 30mm systems. Whatever the case, it may be cost effective to have 12.7mm or 14.5mm radar guided guns to save the larger ammo for the larger targets.
@@martinsmith9054 range, penetration, and rate of fire are the determinants for any anti-drone gun weapon system.
when have we used them in combat since vietnam? that is why we had the M113 and tanks for so long the leopards only on exercise the earlier tanks limited use in vietnam centurions. Abrams just army wanting what they dont need and at the time could barely transport requiring billions in new aircraft that would be much shortened in life carrying them. again havent used tanks for fifty years other lighter more mobile armoured vehicles yes
I think it's a disgrace, seriously how can you take on board SP Arty that is called the K-9 and not name it the Dingo?
Well done.
400billion for 9 subs. Yep, sounds worth it :/
Algorithm.
Pointless. Only a fool would invade Australia, they would have to fight upside down.