HIMARS for Australia - Why is Australia getting them?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- The Australian Government announced on 5 January 2023 that the ADF would be procuring the HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system. Why is Australia getting this new capability? Where might Australia deploy them? How might an Australian HIMARS Regiment be structured?
Great briefing mate! Short answer because everyone else is getting some ;) they have already said with the army restructuring that the Middle East and fights in Europe are out. I think someone may have suggested parking them on the coast or islands to our north to deter an invasion. But as you have correctly stated there is only one nation capable of invading us and they are our friends. As for the regiment they will only need to support one or perhaps two brigades at a stretch, considering 1st brigade will be too busy on boats! Which makes me wonder why we not getting some light 105 mm stuff for them? Anyway cheers mate!
Thanks for the chapters. Great video as always
6:30 - if there were three batteries, but only two ‘available’ for deployment at any time, then wouldn’t that leave a reserve battery plus a couple more for additional training. Using a ‘ready, readying and reset’ rotational structure, as per the current ‘plan Beersheba’ combat brigade rotations, that would give perhaps one battery available per battle group deployed, up to two battle groups in total.
could you do a report on what enhancement the ADF needs to counter the possibility of china setting up an offensive capability in the Solomons
Can you do a video on Australia’s NASAMS purchase?
I'll look at that. Probably a fuller look at the ADF's air defence capability.
My opinion FWIW (which as an ex-choco grunt isn’t much) is the training element goes to Pucka and the operational element (i.e: 16 of the 20) goes to Darwin. This purchase is - like most - about ‘capability’. The idea is that we maintain the ability to operate all modern tactics and systems so that should the need arise, we have a base skill-set to upscale training and deployment of forces that meet particular requirements when needed. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this is the way to go, I’m just that this is why it’s happening. Our defense seems to be centered around defending Tindal (and maybe a few strip bases) until the Americans have time to deploy should an expeditionary force deployed to Butterworth etc. be by-passed/defeated. Of course another (complimentary rather than contrarian) view is that we are buying into the American Military/Industral Complex (i.e: the cost of doing business) to keep our main ally economically satiated. Take the nuclear submarine deal as a case in point; over priced, over time and - to be blunt - without the nuclear armaments, pointless (though that raises a whole ‘ other discussion point).
As an aside, I agree that the chances of these being deployed to Taiwan as slim-to-none existent. If they weren’t on the ground before the first round was fired then they’d never be. Korea on the other hand, with the closer historical ties and sovereign recognition I’m not so sure.
Thanks for the comment, Christopher. Re Korea, we are still part of the UN Command (yes it still exists), I just don't see how the ADF's extremely limited number of HIMARS will improve the situation. There are other capabilities the ADF could provide that would place Australia's "flag at the table".
@@Strategy_Analysis you’re welcome. I find this channel to be well considered and enjoy and respect your presentations. As for your comments on Korea I absolutely agree that our limited number of weapons systems (in this case HIMARS) would be of little use. Rather than these systems though, it is the trained crews (given we tend to train more personnel per unit than the Americans do) that I’d expect to be deployed to man American, Korean or Japanese systems should they need immediate replenishment. Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan I foresee a future where Western governments (or more to the point, populations) are less concerned with the financial cost of conflict than they are the material. Therefore we’ll see the Americans looking to allies to bear some of the loss of blood rather than treasure given they are struggling to meet recruitment targets (according to The Economist by as much as 25-30% in 2022). I think Ukraine serves an example of this. In my ideal Australian military force of the future we’d be seeing more Satellites, Poseidon’s, Wedgetails, long rang missile systems, motorised - rather than mechanised (good luck to an invading heavy armoured invasion force trying to cross Australia’s landscape and distances) ground forces armed with A LOT of handheld missile systems (ideally native derivatives of Javelin, Spike, Starstreak etc.).
I totally disagree about the nuclear powered boats. Most nuclear powered attack submarines do not carry nuclear weapons. The main reasons for having nuclear propulsion is to increase time on station due to higher cruising speed, increased survivability due to higher top speed, and no indiscretion rate, meaning no need to go near the surface to put the snorkel up and run the noisy(and smelly-ASW aircraft often have “sniffers” which can detect the fumes) diesels to recharge the batteries once or twice a day.
HIMARS, I have no idea why we need them…
I would prefer the Saab/Boeing system as well I’m absolutely convinced Australia should have an additional 24 c130 sea planes capable of rapidly transporting these given Australia’s exposure to island defences in addition rapid dragon could be deployed at ranges
Should the fourth tranche of 28 F35 be the B VSTOL version to allow us to procure either a modified Trieste LHD for pure naval aviation capability or an Australianised version of the South Korean DSME light carrier design.
It would cheaper long term just to buy another LHD as you would lose huge amounts of the internal space therefore gutting its role as an amphibious assult platform.
Thanks for the comment, Lindsay. Without going beyond what I can, let's just say that Australia getting the F-35B is extremely unlikely, regardless of how good an idea that might be. Put it down to Internecine warfare.
the US congress approved the sale of HIMARS systems to Australia in 2022 before the last federal election so it was announced that we would be buying them before you stated as the congress would not have approved without an attempt enquire to purchase
Is HIMARS suitable for use against hostile maritime assets? With ranges in the 100s km, this would provide a potential threat to those assets (similar to what happened in the Ukraine). Plus being mobile, assists in avoiding counter battery strikes.
Later versions of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) will be able to strike maritime targets. Yes, being mobile absolutely assists in avoiding counter-battery strikes.
Absolutely, even the ATACMs can nail a ship that decides to slow down for even a small abit
I subscribed purely because it wasnt a robo-voice
Yes, there are a lot of them on UA-cam. Thanks for the Subscription. Happy to take suggestions for future briefings.
I kind of hope we don't use the American truck platform for it.
There’s no other platform for it.
I like a united peer system numbering three like three major general under lieutenant general
That a adversary peer or a enemy peer definately sounds like a case scenario like the peer isn't for our benefit
I mean this doesn't sound like peers for impartially an for anti bias or anti prejudice without unnecessary personal involvement to make decisions together democratic that dismantle the dictatorship of a party for a term or it just dismantle the dictatorship that's trying to alter our desired democratic known reality
It doesn't sound like a generous with people emotionally peer review peer approval process!
That's not our peer!
We are talking in this case scenario a peer that's hardly anyone we'd let be part of a peer review peer approval process
Each soldier on $45k a yr 45,000 troops under lieutenant general one lieutenant general army to maintain the cost of the man hours is about $2,025,000,000 per lieutenant general unit a yr with a defence budget of over $50 billion.
Only 20% of people enlisting getting accepted I see them as ideal military based project workers that'd substantiate everything an confirm everything correctly.
I think 3 lieutenant general are needed, one based on there are 225 seats one per captain under lieutenant general with munitions firing orders rights ,
Then one lieutenant general for 20% of the nation like 5 captain per seat.
Then one lieutenant general for 4% of the nation capability that's another 25 captain per seat that's 1/25th of the country to understand the equivalent of 62% GDP spent in that 1/25th jurisdiction
For the life of me, I just can't think of any reasons why Australia will have the to need use such weapons for defence purposes. Unless Australia is the antagonist provoking others.
Wtf are you on about
When looking at a new Defence purchase, it can be easy to fall into the trap of looking at the shiny object in isolation, rather than how it would actually be employed.
I'm not going to go into my civilian's take on Combined Arms warfare. I'm just going to point you at the current conflict.
We're seeing in real time what happens to isolated assets in Ukraine, and our current Howitzers are not even self propelled. Trucks in that conflict just evaporate.
The extended range of MLRS systems and their mobility enable our precious air logistics to operate further from a conflict zone, because as the cideo creator explains, these pieces are usually moved to a point near the conflict zone by air. Being able to fire and move quickly means that they cover more of the conflict zone per kg, than anything we currently have.
The HIMARS ability to strike from greater distance buys more time for less mobile assets to arrive at a conflict zone, which is critical - assuming an adversary chooses to land anywhere besides Darwin.
They are extremely accurate for the distance and enable precision strikes that mess with an adversaries own precious logistics, again buying more time - either for our own capabilities or those of our allies, who we will need.
That capability in itself is an impediment to how any attack on Australia would be planned and is therefore, a deterrent to hostile actors.
That is the defensive purpose of the weapon system.
Being dangerous enhances safety. These systems make us more dangerous.
It is a system that helps ever other system we operate be more effective.
Being naturally cynical I’d say the albo is looking at getting ready to send the equipment to Europe, possibly the Ukraine. Would I dare suggest that they are considering sending Australian troops?
@@paddlesmcbean2366 US Congress was notified of the potential sale over a year ago, i think the purchase was planned prior to ALP taking office.
@@paddlesmcbean2366 Maybe that's their way of giving equipment to other allied states under the US umbrella - have the factories divert the product to other countries in a conflict zone, give them old ammo, and make changes based on field performance.
Let's hope Australia won't use this weapon against their biggest trading partner, it would be wise enough not to follow US's political tricks.
Beware Chinese military, the U.S military is historys and the futures greatest killing machine, it does not miss its targets, it doesn't take bribes its an unstoppable force.
Haha. What’s your plan?
If every American ally was as cowardly as you, America might loose or worse, not even bother to defend its current ally’s.
There’s a choice. We all (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Australia etc) stand up to China and stay free by deterring Chinese aggression. This may making it possible but unlikely for China to try something stupid.
Or, choice 2 (your choice) we all abandon each other. China takes Taiwan, massively enhancing its strategic position. Then moving on to its other goals.
Eventually Australia will be a vassal state of China and all of Asia will be controlled and dominated by China, in the way that Russia dominates Central Asia.
The good news is, in your lifetime the second option is good for you selfishly.
The bad news is future generations will be in a fucked position because people like you didn’t stand up to China when we had a chance.
I thought you were a coward. Not selfish, because that would require you to have thought out the implications of your stance. But now it think it’s something else.
You are just incredibly naive.
You dolt think China will do anything disgusting in the future.
You are 100% wrong about that assumption and anyone who knows anything about them will know that.
won't be up to Australia. China's more likely to start something
@@chrisc2671 China do anything disgusting? Did they bomb another country for no reason? Could you put out more evidence of that without stereotype or defame on purpose? Australia should stand in their own shoes and secure their own interest, not America's. You so called FREEDOM is nothing more than a hollow definetion and a political slogan of US when US provokes to make more conflicts among the world. I don't think this is China's problem.
Finally, I really hope China to grow up and counter America. This is not for China itself only, but also for many countries that have been destroyed by US, I deem this is rather 'glourious' than 'disgusting'.
@@ghjgbnhjjghjthknvf6379 'It doesn't take bribes' hah, enjoy your 2 goats for 2 million dollars in Afganistan.
nice joke
The Australians are nervous about China....and so they should be..
i guess China does worry them