Australia's Missile Force - New Missile Brigade
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 кві 2024
- Australia is creating a new missile force - what can it do?
Related briefings:
Australia's New Armored Force: • Australia's new armore...
Australia's New Fighting Force: • Australia's New Fighti...
References:
Australian Department of Defence
U.S. Department of Defense
Note the phrase in the thumbnail "Australia's NMESIS?" refers to the United States Marine Corps' land-based anti-ship missile capability NMESIS (Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System). It does NOT refer to the English word "nemesis". I explain this in the briefing.
New Zealand takes a simplistic approach to defence - having no weapons doesn’t cost any money
Virtue signaling is also free.
@@alesh2275 I have never signaled Virtue....who is she?
The NZSAS punch well above their weight, and the rest of their defence force might be small, but so is their population, so it's pretty much "right sized" for their tax base.
NZ always ride on Australia's back. Get on with it because you are not part of Australia. If you want your own defence ....show us the money!!! otherwise befriends with China
Australia can’t afford to simpletons.
Platforms are great - the essential bit though is reloads. Need the missile factories here in Oz and significant war stocks in a warehouse ready to go.
Yes, logistic support is critical.
Even if you have missile factories in Australia, can you realistically expect the entire semicon infra required to manufacture the guidance systems for these missiles to be in Australia as well? Does Australia have any fabs or OSAT or other semicon supply chain factories?
Unlikely to have permission to manufacture missiles in OZ.
@@Facebrook99 If we don't have permission to make the rockets here, then we don't buy the weapons, pure and simple. We can be the US's best mate, but not their tow rag. Time to stand up for ourselves.
Australia needs three such missile Brigades, not just one!
Australia needs to shut it's fucking mouth 👊👊👊👊
So you'll be prepared to pay an extra few percent on your income tax, and a 12.5 % GST? Stating we need 3 times the force is easy, paying for it is hard.
@@Smokeyr67 Tax the resource industry like Norway does we could have the best defence in the world.
Great video. Please consider an image at the end that summarises the numbers and types of equipment that will come into play.
Thank you. Good suggestion. I'll incorporate that next time.
I wouldn't even bother with land-based NSM, range is too limited for a land based A2AD role. It's a great missile don't get me wrong, but 100 nautical miles surface-launched isn't much on a world map and at least on RAN warships you can move that range circle toward a threat and it is far lighter than the existing Harpoon, helping to reduce the top weight/centre of gravity/stability issues we've experienced with the ANZAC class frigates in high seas. Instead i'd be buying the 'Typhon' system in large numbers from the US as both a long range air defence and maritime strike system, it's essentially a 4-cell US Navy standard strike-length Mk41 VLS on an 8x8 transporter-erector-launcher. That means introducing no new missile types, we could use SM-6, SM-2 Blk3B/C, quad-packed ESSM Blk2, TLAM Blk5 etc. just as we already do in the Navy, and quite frankly i think it's the far better, simpler, more flexible and probably less expensive option for the AIR-6502 medium range ground based air defence project whilst killing both birds with the same stone.
What's the price though?
And how many soldiers do you need to operate it as compared to NSM.
Next goal is 50k mate. And I will be here to watch it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
Another solid video. Also you did Kiwi videos really well. So thanks for that series too :)
Suggestions: I don't know if you've studied the Armies/Navies or South Korea and Japan, but given they would likely both be allies in a future war with China, I'd love to see briefings on their ships, amphibious assets, etc. Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing a video on how they would integrate into a force structure with the US and Australia; what roles each nation's assets would play and how all these pieces would fit into a coherent force.
Perhaps those suggestions are too ambitious, but I haven't seen any other channels tackle them and they fascinate me.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks. I will at least be doing a briefing on the Japanese Navy (JMSDF).
I will suggest u a channel called "Eurasia Naval Insight"
@@ankitkawale9748 That guy is a PLAN shill who deletes any comments that don't conform to the "PLAN is best at everything, USN and other Western Navies are trash" narrative.
The previous president of Sth Korea said he wouldn’t go to war with China and it is obvious why. A war with China would mean Sth Korea being attacked by Nth Korea. Singapore has also said it wont go to war with China.
WTF would we ever be in a war with China??!! They account for fully 50% of our overseas trade??!!
The sheer monumental strategic incompetence of the ADF is breath taking.
it doesn't matter what the ADF recommends or asks for the utlimate decision is made by the pollies and the civilian defence department and their corporate buddies ,
ABSOLUTELY mate!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We're all experts, at least in our own minds
@@Smokeyr67 Some of us are experts.
@@VK6AB- well, the "experts" know how acquisitions work. Your given requirements, a budget and expectations, but nothing is static, the goal posts are constantly shifting. For example as part of air 9000, initially the goal was to replace the Kiowa in the light recce role. The perfect replacement was, guess what, a new Kiowa. Of course those controlling the purse strings wanted a Robinson R22, the AAAvN wanted a heavy attack helo ( AH-64) so when budget and aspirations collided we bought the Tiger.
The Tiger isn't a bad platform, but it's neither Arthur nor Martha, it's a compromise brought on by lack of clearly defined requirements and budget constraints. Mind you, I expect the Kiwis to buy them for a bargain basement price and enjoy decades of solid service from them.
Anyhow, I understand your frustrations, but it isn't due to the ADF, given free reign and unlimited resources the RAN would be operating 2 QE class carriers, the RAAF 100 odd F-35s and the Army would have 2 fully manned full time Divisions. The problem lies not with the ADF, not with DMO, not even with the politicians, but with the taxpayer. Because we, as a collective constantly vote for whoever promises the biggest tax cut, we don't have the income to support the ADF properly.
How many missiles and how many reloads , probably not enough to make a difference !
You have to start somewhere. I think you have to go back to the Bloodhound missile to find Australian long range missile forces.
That sounds about right for long-range systems.
About time we produced our own!!
We shall see what projects are to be shelved or " delayed" under the current government announcement about defence cuts.
When was it any different?
How many times, did the Libs drop the ball--count!"
Local idiots have opted to buy nuke subs, (which we will NEVER receive), instead of buying off the shelf SK or Jap machines.
We should be building EVERYTHING here. We CAN do it if we can stop the Prolly's from feathering their own nests with bribes from the big players.
At one stage Thales had proposed a 6 X 6 Bushmaster for a US requirement. I wonder if this should be pursued to enable a higher capacity vehicle for LRASM or SAM launcher?
Interesting. I'll look into that.
From a whole of defence PoV, I love the Strikemaster for Land 4100 Phase 2. Logistics and maintenance commonality with the existing Bushie fleet, local manufacture supports jobs and dodges the FOGB queue for HIMARS, and diversifying the chassis' capabiliies makes it that much more attractive to potential export customers. Its also smaller and more deployable than a HIMARS, so given our scarce sea and airlift capability and generally probably the better option.
But damn if the LRASM isnt an absolute beast of an ASCM. It'll be a missed trick if they dont integrate that thing with HIMARS even if it doesn't win 4100 P2.
Yes, a difficult choice between the two. Each with its own positives. Let's see if the project survives the budget.
The Ukraine conflict has shown us that close in air support (up to 25 km - Aligaotr attack helicopter or equivalent) needs to be embedded within brigades. And while missile air defence is critical, rapid fire (CWUS type systems) is critical against low cost, high volume threats.
So a specialist brigade makes sense. But only for high value specialist systems - HIMARS, Patriot etc. particularly for defence of high value stationary assets - power stations etc.
The area denial paradigm is relevant for the defence of Australian mainland, but not when our brigades are expeditionary and offensive.
Is the idea that we would be invited by allies to defend against invading forces?
Fantastic review! Again the nay sayers are out in force but a someone said “you have to start somewhere”
And with a battery from 8/12 playing in boats around the coastline, it’s all coming together.
My guess projects postponed will be in the area of heavy armour upgrades - the marines got rid of their M1’s. So maybe M10’s instead?
I still like the idea of Stryker type brigades - especially for 7th based on upgraded LAV 6’s (since that’s what the Kiwis operate).
So 3 is tracked mechanised, with an airmobile element? 7th is motorised with high mobility wheeled equipment (that’s is air portable) & the reserve brigades are based on a motorised brigade concept - using Bushmasters, Hawkies & LAV 6’s. Everybody is talking about Iraq Afghanistan and IED/ RPG resistance- but that’s not the future! Cheap, easy to produce and operate and maintained equipment that is produced locally.
After all by far our most important asset is people - as I was reminded several decades ago “it takes 6 weeks to build a vehicle but 18 years to produce the operator!”
Even though some commentators think we will be fighting China in the near future as some strategic thinkers have pointed out, that would destroy us without firing a shot! No imports & no exports!
Cheers
Thanks for the detailed comment, Ken. I will be doing a briefing on the new Army structure soon.
As long as the nay sayer’s have valid points it’s totally concerned / constructive criticism.
Needing ratio’s of minimum 2 - 3 to 1 missiles per target where are those missiles coming from , how many will be stored in Australian magazines & more importantly we will take casualties & loose equipment.
Where are those replacements come from ?????
What decoy’s do we have in launch vehicles as well as decoy missiles???
If we take the bs intel from Ukraine that Ukraine shoots done 90% of Russian threats, well we are going to require bloody heaps of missiles.
But it’s definitely safe to say both sides are launching volleys of missiles to hit a target . & definitely most are getting shot down .
I’m suggesting a Volunteer Civilian Defence Force . Main roll is prepare large numbers of men & women to a reasonable basic training standard.
And to operate decoys & add volume . Using unarmored civilian vehicles & trailers .
Using civilian R&D & civilian manufacturing.
@@concernedaussie1330 um any threat is not just over the border like Ukraine, so the volleys of missiles won’t be the same. In fact it is highly unlikely we would be attacked militarily at all. We can be destroyed economically far easier and how long do you think our modern “must have the latest thing now” population would tolerate not being able to buy stuff? They go nuts if the power is off for more than a few hours or if they can’t go shopping at midnight on a Sunday! The reality is that the former governments mismanaged our defence spend for years & the current one has been listening to defence contractors (& also the unions whose members work for them). At the end of this year our biggest ally will most likely be so unstable it will have to turn inwards regardless who wins, our biggest trading partner will have massive economic woes of its own and Europe will be a mess!
And in this country we will be battling what Mother Nature will be throwing at us - again. So we just buy a few stand off weapons mount them on Australian built platforms and everyone is happy l cheers
Great stuff. Thank you for your insight 👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
Brilliant content !
Thanks, much appreciated.
You can see what they are trying to do. But let’s be honest without ballistic missiles it’s just a waste of time
Greatly appreciate this information. Looking forward to your analysis of the budget changes and further.
🇦🇺
Thanks. That one could be very interesting.
About 10 years late we more similar weapons to protect Australians.
Well, it's a start...
What has happened to using the Hawkei ute as a high mobility launch platform for NASAMS?
Good presentation mate. I have lost faith in the ADF and anyone involved in Defence Procurement. We get nothing right.
Whatever we are aiming to acquire, we should as the saying goes, exact the digit, for I feel time is running out before a major clash occurs
My first thoughts on the Subject:
Are there plans for local production of these new systems? I believe there are some, but i'm not sure how they've progressed and to what systems they relate. Magazine depth has become a critical point in recent conflicts. So local production would seem to be a must.
Why no V-SHORAD system? Is RBS-70 considered enough for this job? Gun based systems are very cost effective and provide an important component to air defense. Directed energy systems are in the works but unlikely to see service in numbers for some time. Could something like Boxer Skyranger with a 30/35mm cannon be a decent addition or will the existing boxer platforms be good enough for that sort of work. Or perhaps something like a Bushmaster or Hawkei armed with a light cannon, short range missiles would be an idea.
It just feels like with the prevalence of Cheap drones and large scale missile barrages a hard kill C-RAM system like Mantis, or skynex deployed on a high mobility platform is going to be essential to protecting troops going forward.
I subscribed!
Thanks, appreciated.
OUTSTANDING 👍👍
Thanks. Appreciated.
Need anti--drone, anti-aircraft CIWS mounted on wheeled chassis to protect these batteries.
I'll be covering this issue shortly.
Some Patriot systems would help boost the defense of Australian bases from future air attacks.
There is an Air Force program that will cover longer range air defence, including against hypersonic system. That is still some way off however.
S400/500 !
Geez the range is extremely limited for land based systems!
How about some large anti shipping ballistic missiles that have 2k klms + ranges .
Really seems like we are trying to let our adversaries get really close to our shores .
Not my preferred option.
Probably long-range stuff will be Airforce and Navy assets.
This is more for infantry units fighting on islands in the Indo-Pacific.
Giving them some additional punch.
It's a big step in the right direction - considering what we have now - near to zero. It can be expanded and augmented as the threat and availability of systems (like PrSM) comes on line.
@@krossbolt4100 I agree .
The best time to prepare, is before the emergency. We desperately need to pull our finger out .
My whole point is we need huge numbers of decoys. The ratio of missiles / drones ect getting shot down , miss or fail to launch is very high .
It a good guess to say minimum 2 missiles to 1 target is required. I’d have more faith in 3 to 1 .
That goes for anti air threats also. The only serious solution is a civilian volunteer force & NOW .
Civilian force & civilian R&D . They can be un armoured vehicles , trailers ect that fire cheap decoy missiles or indigenous missiles that are fully capable or any combination of both .
ADF numbers don’t add up with reality, in the real world we take losses . What if we take 30% losses in a 1st wave strike ? Dead , wounded
Ect . Where do the new trained people & equipment come from ????
Volunteer Civilian Defence Force NOW .
@@WilhelmEleyWe need minimum 2 or 3 missiles per target.
To account for losses ( shot down ) fail to launch or misses .
Same goes for defensive missiles.
We will also take losses dead , wounded & damaged equipment.
Where do the trained people & reserve equipment come from ????
Volunteer civilian military force. They should be armed with locally produced & locally R&D Equipment that suits civilian vehicles & trailers.
They add bulk & the decoys & extra targets to our adversaries.
@@concernedaussie1330 local liscence production yes, 100%
But local R&D is not practical across the board unless you are USA or China.I also agree with having more stuff strapped on civilian vehicles.
In particular containerization makes sense,
using ISO-20' and ISO-40' containers for all sorts of systems as base platform.
You can have more containers than vehicles, and draft in civilian trucks in case of escalation.
Having the containerization /truck-attachment developed in australia and export that globally could be a great thing.
Take COTS systems (missiles, artillery, mortars, Radar etc.), make a containerized or truck-attached variant in australia off the base system, develop that in Australia.
Do the liscence production for the domain specific parts in australia for missiles, shells etc. (also cannon tubes, wear and tear parts and such).
And you'd be pretty much set.
Western militaries all seem to forget about air defence artillery to compliment their missile batteries. Experience in the Yom Kippur War, Falklands War and now in Ukraine, shows that ADA is far more effective against low altitude targets then missiles,and far cheaper.
Indeed. I'll be discussing this in a future briefing.
@@Strategy_Analysisgreat work mate just subscribed 🇦🇺👍
@@Strategy_Analysis I'll look forward to it.
@@jiaskinner7784 Thanks Mate. Appreciated.
Looks like a start at least. We still need much more and inter-continental as well.
I’d prefer to see an Amphib Brigade based in Townsville, Comprising of 2 x Amphib Battalions and an Air Assault Battalion. Mix this with 2 “Boxer” Brigades (modelled on the US Striker Brigades) and a Heavy Brigade With Abrams, Huntsmen and Redbacks based out of Adelaide. Position the Himars within the Amphib Brigades, allows them to rapidly deploy into the pacific and north into the Archepeligo to utilise there abilities better. I’d even look at retaining the ASLAVS if there still mechanically capable and imbed them into the Amphib Battalions giving them a bit more survivabiltiy and heavier firepower to defend the Himars fire bases. Also if they are looking at forcing the army as a whole into an Amphib role then why are they so reluctant to hard deck the canberras and get a Squadron of b model f-35 to split across them. The capabilities marry perfectly with the Himars systems as demonstrated by the us marine corps. The last five years of divisions and acquisitions completely baffle me from a logistics and effectiveness point of view.
man i love your content but you should look into cleaning up the audio a little bit maybe use something like audacity
Thanks and appreciate the feedback. I'll look at that, although I'm not in a studio, I'm travelling so have a lot of background noise and use a laptop with a portable mic.
They need a close range swarm attack defense including considering large numbers of decoys
This will be covered in a future briefing.
Man, haven’t even watched it yet, though their missile force is meager, at best! Nowhere near ready for the challenge at hand.
It’s rational given the size of Australian population and economy. Where spending 2.4% of budget on the ADF, more would make no sense unless we promoted all the troops to general.
@@petrichor3947 I understand, though you have a behemoth in the region that at some point in the future are likely to force the issue.
@@JD-dm1uj I agree there is a behemoth in the region but a fair distance away from us. But why would we come to blows, I doubt any Australian government wants the cost of a war. China will try all sorts of tricks to get its hands on Taiwan short of war. War has a lot of economic strings attached and Xi would prefer they didn’t end up tangled on his watch. It’s not impossible but I’m in the camp that wonders why. Look at his pussy footing around the Philippines.
@@JD-dm1ujWe have to except who we are.
@petrichor3947
I'm not quite sure if it was a typo, but do you mean to refer to the percentage spent compared to GDP? I ask, because when I looked up Australia defense spending, they were spending roughly $35 billion (US), or 2.04% of GDP for FY2024.
I ask because if you meant GDP, they do just barely meet NATO's 2% goal (yes, I know Australia isn't in NATO but 2% is a the stated target of NATO members and is a good benchmark). However, this will only be the third year since 1995 that they'll be over 2%. Australia has been lagging behind in military spending since the mid 90s, with most years spending below 1.9% GDP and several even below 1.8% GDP. I don't think it's too much to ask for Australia to spend more on defense, especially considering in the same time period the US has always been well above 3%, with many years well above 4%.
The US (ie the US Taxpayer) has almost exclusively underwritten global trade for Western nations since WW2. When global trade has been threatened it's been the US Navy that made the seas safe. Just take the recent missile attacks by the Houthis. The USN has launched well over 100 SM-2 to shoot down weapons aimed at ships in the Red Sea. That's over $400 million in missiles alone to make sure ships from every nation can keep sailing through the Red Sea.
It's nearly tax day here in the US (April 15) and it's another year where a large portion of my income goes to helping defend the worlds oceans for all countries, while at the same time our country still has no universal healthcare and other things that could potentially be paid for if we didn't spend so much on defense.
So while this post may be long winded, it's my rationale for why allied countries shouldn't just take US military power for granted and could do more when it comes to defense spending.
Australia could experiment with a gurkha company in order to ease the pressure on the recruitment shortage. Long history together
Australian Foreign Legion. Everyone's favourite sport. I love it!
Many years ago when the UK was cutting back defence spending and disbanding a Gurkha Bn, my Father was part of an Army "think tank" that investigated the possibility of inviting the disbanded Nepalese soldiers entry into the ADF with incentives such as citizenship for them and their nuclear family, immediate access to low interest housing loans, transfer of super and the like.
The proposal was put forward to the Hawke government and greeted with enthusiasm, then Keating got in and nothing was done, then the Howard government was elected and canned it on the basis that the proposal was too expensive and politically untenable (i.e. having immigrants paid higher than Aussie Soldiers went against they're constituents ideology.
Politicians suck, if Hawke and Beazley had pulled their finger out and gotten the job done we could have had a few hundred great Soldiers, and a couple of thousand great new Australians, but that was never going to buy votes for any political party.
How are you producing and acquiring munition stockpiles?
Australia will domestically produce missiles for the HIMARS.
Can you make more like this? Like guides on SAM systems, missile forces, tank/armoured units, artillery forces of other lesser known militaries like china, India, iran, etc.
Very few reliable videos on these, and especially from secretive nations.
I've done many on China. Check out my briefings.
Well for Indian military, I'd suggest watching Perun's India video and videos by the channels StratNewsGlobal, Bharat Shakti and Cybersurg. And in case you want to know about Indian Artillery, especially rocket and missile artillery, check out Rohit Vats' blog on Indian Artillery Divisions. Artillery in Indian Army is numerous. More than 230 Artillery Regiments exist, each with at least 18 artillery pieces (howitzers, field guns, SPGs, MLRS, Cruise Missile launchers or Ballistic Missile launchers). Usually, one Infantry/Mechanized/Armoured Brigade is supported by an Artillery Regiment. Plus some Divisions have additional Independent Artillery Brigades attached. But the actual hammer of the Indian Artillery are the Indian Artillery Divisions (40th, 41st, 42nd and 43rd Artillery Divisions). All Artillery Systems are networked down to each arty gun via the ACCCS-Shakti system, which itself is part of the larger Indian Army TAC-C3I system.
Usually each Indian Strike Corps has one Artillery Division. And there are four Strike Corps, two each on the China and Pakistan fronts each. These Arty Divs have an entire Composite Missile Brigade(s) equipped with BrahMos cruise missiles and Pralay tactical ballistic missiles (replacement of Prithvi TBMs). And two brigades of MLRS, mostly Pinaka (replacement of Grad) and Smerch (to be later replaced by new Indian MLRS named LRGR).
All of the above is the existing structure pre-Covid era. Since then, Indian Army orbat has been going through a major transformation, the second largest transformation since Independence. A small part of it, Indian military top brass has stated on record that they are now building up an "Indian Rocket Force" akin to PLA's PLARF. Details are hard to come by, but it is generally understood that the number of Artillery Regiments that have Missiles or MLRS will go up significantly.
New Indian missiles currently in flight testing or development, like the ITCM (successor of the Nirbhay program), LDHCM (Long Duration Hypersonic Cruise Missile, based on the HSTDV scramjet test flights conducted in recent years), Pralay Ballistic Missile, Prahaar Ballistic Missiles, MRPKS, LRGR along with existing systems like Pinaka and BrahMos will form the bulk of this Missile Force. Remains to be seen if loitering munitions and the myriad of drone swarms the Army recently acquired will also be placed under the same "force."
Unlike the PLARF, however, Indian "Missile Force" won't be a separate service branch and most definitely won't have control over the Indian Nuclear delivery missiles (Agni-Prime and Agni V).
If you are interested, I can provide similar insights into other Arms of Indian Army as well, such as Infantry, Armoured, Aviation, etc. Or the Navy or Air Force for that matter.
If the Russian conflict has taught us anything is that we need high stockpiles of these weapons as you burn through them extremely quickly when a real shooting war starts. We need homegrown production facilities that can easily be ramped up to produce large amounts of these weapons, not rely on US military contractors.
Indeed. Logistics. Logistics. Logistics.
Interesting concept. Yet, current situation with recruitment and retention in the ADF, especially in the Army, will make it difficult to implement this concept. Plus, how will the AD batteries deal with new technology such as drones and hypersonic missile technology 🤔
This is part of a broader integrated air and missile defence capability. The higher end is planned to address the hypersonics issue.
Suspect it will be like the Avn BDE, always "ready" and with limited opportunities for internal training.
Latest announcement is 2x himars battalions for Aus Army
There's a new weapon to consider, HIMARS launched SDB. Sorry, I forget the name it probably has. Still, it's a great capability development.
P.s. Do we yet know where the new defence cuts are going?
Not yet, but I will do a briefing after the budget is announced.
GLSDB
ATACMS is where its at.
So many buzzwords !
NB - All modern military and geopolitical discussions are required by law to include a minimum number of instances of the words "future-focused", "long range fires", "A2AD", "Indo-Pacific", and "potential future belligerent". Under no circumstances are the words "China", "outsourced US military force" or "defacto American colony" to be used, at least in public.
Australia needs laser defence systems to take out future attacks from swarms of drones and missiles. What types of systems could the ADF procure?
A good question, and one that I will do a briefing on later this year.
A good point. What about an Electronic Wsrfare and Jamming capability?
Should have had this years ago ........................
Especially to replace the old bloodhound missiles we once had
I await the impending cuts announced by the Minister in recent days. I will value your comment.
I will be doing a briefing on this after the budget is released. Need the facts first, lots of rumours flying around.
next up 1 million here we come . great info of ours and the aboriginal peoples country.
Still pathetically inadequate for our defence.
Will we have the ability to produce our own missiles and spare parts for these systems?
Missiles, yes.
It's a good start, but what are we doing about Drone swarms and Anti Ballistic Missile defence? To think our Biggest cities, plus Alice Springs, Exmouth, Darwin, and Townsville aren't on the nuke list at the moment is delusional so where are the 7 THAAD systems needed to ensure our way of life continues if things get hotter abroad? As for drones, what about a mobile vehicle such as the Hawkei employing a nimble fire control radar paired with a small calibre AA gun or anti-drone multi jammer?
The map you showed at the start of this excellent video demonstrates everything that is wrong with the ADF's view of what our defence forces is doing. The so called "forward defence" strategy has so many holes in it that it's verging on delusional. A glaring basic fault is the presumption that the ADF will be able to move assets into the territories of all those sovereign countries to our north.
If we were to use a combination of submarines, aircraft and missiles for our "forward defence" and restrict the Army to operations on Australian soil, that is as our "close in" defence we would be able to tailor or defence spending to a more sensible level. We would use smaller surface ships (missile armed), aircraft, shorter range missiles and a very mobile land force to defend continental Australia.
The ADF is about the "defence" of Australia NOT the "offence" from Australia!
We would be better served if we were to help ASEAN neighbours develop their own defence capabilities. Eventually creating an Asian/Oceania version of NATO.
Developing defence capabilities that pretend they are going to be able to operate on foreign soils is just pie in the sky and capacity building to promote the egos and careers of senior defence officers at the expense of Australia's real defence needs.
All that said, I really like your videos, keep up the good work and I hope you reach the 10,000 subscribers level very soon - you deserve it!
Thanks very much. Greatly appreciated.
Missile force? Hmmm …. No nsm on land platforms? No patriot type systems? No Boeing Saab missiles to strike the other side of a mountainous region? Do we have cruise missiles to push out the back of the c130s?
The HIMARS are a strategic weapon, not so much a tactical fire support weapons for close support army unit manoeuvre. I'm unclear of how it would be tactically deployed for fire support to army brigades. We know that HIMARS might hit hostile surface ships at medium-long range, which is useful for a defending ground force; substituting warplanes or VTOL for that role. This does free up the scope of the airforce to carry out other attack or defending missions, if the army can hit hostile incoming ships with HIMARS. These mobile launcher missile batteries have an obvious role in defending the Philippines, with that kind of range. Finally, these impressive smart missiles launched from a HIMAR platform might be overkill, if a 155mm howitzer can achieve the same fire mission at the fraction of the munition projectile cost.
if they don't have a 2000 km range they will already be here
The utter neglect of our armed forces over many decades is partly the result of not "value-adding" to our rich resource base. So little heavy or technical industry. So we have a tiny armed forces, import everything, and low recruiting numbers.
Worse those anti-ship missiles may have to be used on PRC vessels. Yes, our major trading partner is strategically our enemy. Very logical. So we sell them wheat, sheep, wine, iron ore, and we get GWM utes in return.
Historically, Australia punches well above it's weight. In WW1 from a population of under five million, we fielded five large infantry divisions [4 infantry battalions of over 1000 men to a brigade, with 3 brigades to a division], with all the usual engineers, sigs, arty, medical, etc logistics of the day. We could not equip them of course, so the UK provided that. Plus there was a mounted infantry/cavalry division of light horse regiments.
WW2, with a slightly larger population, and again, we sent a small army [ a strong corps] overseas, equipped by the UK, and USA.
Now, with 26 million, we can barely scrape together a division, and have a handful of ships and aircraft.
Well, I have already explained how we don't make anything, including military gear, and even that is overseas-owned.
And we don't have a DEFENSE force, because we are "guns" for hire, except we don't get paid. So most times we we go overseas to fight, we threaten our security, not enhance it.
Old Winston Churchill in WW2 bleeding Aussies dry in the North African desert. Or losing the 8th division in Singapore, because the Brits we too dumb to fortify the north of the Island. Or obeying the "stable genius" of MacArthur who knew how to beat the Japs on the Kokoda trail from a comfy hotel in Brisbane! Of course we knew what he was like from the carnage at Gallipoli and France in WW1, and who can forget the farce of Vietnam. Wrong war, wrong tactics, wrong ally [Saigon regime!], and obeying yet another foreign general [Westmoreland] who didn't have a clue.
PM Curtin had to beg Churchill to get our divisions back from the mid-east, to stop the Japanese in New Guinea.
It is not as if we can't produce good leaders, like John Monash, probably the best general of WW1.
So we have these armed forces, but never own or control them. I wonder why recruiting is so bad??
Sorry, but I can't see the sense in this organisation. I can see why the bulk of the ADF's land combat power should be deployed close to your major population centres, and that each formation should have a battery of HIMARS, and that each major airfield should have air-defence missiles.
The USMC's conceptual thought was, seemingly, captured a few years ago by a historian enamoured of the defence of Wake Island. Is the ADF's too?
Try fixing the headline as in "Nemesis"...that will help get more subs...
Yes I realise that is not the correct spelling of the English word. Here it refers to a United States Marine Corps capability, that is spelt this way.
@@Strategy_Analysis Fair enough.
I withdraw my snark.
No worries, all good.
These are all good steps, however, self-reliance in ammunition is the key. If we do get the AMRAAMER, this at least gives decent altitude (20 000m) in stark contrast the ESSM which is low or very low altitude system and allows everything to fly over the top of the ANZAC frigates. Hence, they offer no real defence to the nation's coast (or to themselves when operating alone). Oman (from memory) totally produces the AMRAAMER while we make only an engine part for the ESSM in Adelaide. So, this is something we should clearly be improving. Then, with the HIMARS, the system is useless without the capacity to provide sufficient rockets. Anyone who has played war games using the German Nebelwerfer or Stalin's Organ knows how devestating these weapons can be, provided you can keep the rockets up to them. This has been Ukraine's biggest problem with the HIMARS. The US plant producing these rockets only makes at maximum 9 000 rockets per year and this includes the long range rockets. Historically US production of the standard HIMARS rockets has been around 5-6 000 per year. I was involved in an argument on UA-cam when Ukraine first received the HIMARS, when I said they would not be a game changer because there were insufficient rockets. The pro-Ukrainian crowd did not like this. It ultimately ended in quite a constructive debate where someone did some numbers based on the 16 launchers that had been provided at that time, firing only 3 salvos a day. So, 16 launches times 6 rockets per launcher and 3 salvos per day equals 288 rockets per day. The Ukrainians at that time had been given 10 000 rockets, so that is only 34 days worth of shooting. Take into account that not all the rockets are going to make it to the front and keeping some in reserve, that sustained shooting capability rapidly drops to a couple of weeks. Clearly not enough to have any serious impact on an opponent such as the Russians. Further, though US stocks are not officially released, total production figures of rockets were, and a rough estimate off around 50 000 rockets remaining in US stocks was made. At the same very modest rate of fire (and we know how the Yanks like to shoot), that provides under 1 week of fire for the US in any full on fight. So, for Australia to have this system and to not have our own production of rockets, totally undermines the value of this system, simply because there is not enough rockets available. This is another example of what I call, Tick the Box Defence. Yet again the government and Defence can make a big noise about what they are doing, but is there any genuine war fighting capability? Clearly not.
How about a vid on lessons learned from Ukraine. What is still relevant? Volume bombing big big issue. Troops basically there to plant flags. Drone? Glide bombs?
What's 42 units going to do on a continent??
We have a missile force? Fuck
Sounds like DPN skype meeting , haha
Great information. I think that the Russian military might have some inpact on military developments in the West taken their success in mostly flat terrain in Ukraine . Australia is unlike Ukraine I think and easier to defend because its not landlocked. I'm a Kiwi mate. We've got nothing. Our last combat force was Victor 6 '71-'72 Vietnam. Since then we've built toilets. Except NZSAS1.
Here we go!
far to little far to late .
How tiny is this super expensive missile force going to be ?
Australia doesn't stand alone so doesn't have to as big as it's enemies
@@JasperKlijndijkand we’ve been given a 100% guarantee on the reliability of our allies?
Correct, whatever token force we get will,simply be swept away as we have never developed our depth and mass of our forces
@@Aaronsmith-cu8ii Only one counts and its in their interest to protect a country they may use as a gigantic base, probably our biggest contribution to any future major Indo-Pacific conflict. If your saying expect a 100% commitment or forget it then you're a fool.
Better late than never.
What is the operational requirements for yet another US bought system 500 Km is NOT long range .
The enemy shouldn't know what we have . Damn it when will we Australians take our fkn security seriously . 😒
there forgetting something.. every single one of these assets will need to be protected my an mobile AAA for drone warefare or there sitting ducks to cheape drones
Australia’s token defence units without any strategic depth, like our 59 outdated Abrams tanks. All training frameworks for wartime growth with overpriced US equipment.
Australia 🇦🇺 sadly has cut back fare to much we need to be able to protect all our coast line then look at what is happening in Ukraine 🇺🇦 right now and it a huge coast line to protect
The Imperative for an Australian Nuclear Deterrent in the Face of China's Existential Threat.
Australia's strategic security landscape is increasingly fraught with challenges that pose an existential threat to its sovereignty. Foremost among these is China's rising military might, whose expansionist policies and aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific region have raised alarms about Australia's future stability and security. Given the current state of Australia's defence capabilities, the acquisition of nuclear weapons emerges as a crucial strategy to deter potential aggression and ensure national survival.
Strategic Vulnerabilities and Defense Shortcomings
Australia boasts a vast and sparsely populated coastline stretching over 25,000 kilometres, presenting a formidable challenge for defence and surveillance. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is under-equipped to secure this extensive border against a superior military force like China. Key shortcomings include:
1. Insufficient Defense Expenditure: Australia's defence budget, while significant, is spread thin across multiple domains, resulting in a lack of advanced and comprehensive land, sea, and air deterrents. The current expenditure levels are inadequate to match the rapid military advancements seen in China.
2. Manpower Constraints: The ADF is experiencing its lowest manpower levels since World War II. This limited personnel pool hampers Australia's ability to project power and sustain prolonged defensive operations, particularly against a numerically superior foe. This is evidenced by the new Australian Foreign Legion forecast to boost recruit numbers.
3. Technological and Capability Gaps: The ADF lacks the advanced technological edge and integrated defence systems to effectively counter modern threats. This includes deficits in missile defence, cyber capabilities, and strategic mobility.
The Case for a Nuclear Deterrent.
In the face of these challenges, nuclear weapons offer a potent solution that can offset conventional military disadvantages and provide a credible deterrent against existential threats. The strategic rationale for Australia to pursue nuclear armament includes:
1. Deterrence Against Superior Forces: Nuclear weapons serve as a powerful deterrent, compelling any potential aggressor to reconsider the risks of a military incursion. The mere presence of a credible nuclear arsenal can induce hesitation and strategic caution in adversaries, including China.
2. Force Multiplier: A nuclear capability would act as a force multiplier, significantly enhancing Australia’s defensive posture without needing proportional increases in conventional forces. This would enable Australia to maintain a more balanced and sustainable defence budget.
3. Sovereignty and Autonomy: Possessing nuclear weapons would enhance Australia’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on allied support in times of crisis and enabling more decisive and independent defence policies.
4. Geopolitical Stability: A nuclear-armed Australia would contribute to regional stability by establishing a balance of power. This could deter China's direct aggression, coercive tactics, and geopolitical maneuvering.
Conclusion.
In a rapidly evolving security environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons presents a compelling strategic imperative for Australia. Faced with China's overwhelming military superiority and constrained by current defence capabilities, Australia must consider a nuclear deterrent to secure its sovereignty, safeguard its vast coastline, and ensure national survival. By developing a credible nuclear arsenal, Australia can transform its strategic landscape, compelling any potential aggressor to think twice before undertaking any kinetic actions against the nation. Australia needs to grow up.
How many HIMARS & NASAMS launchers are manufactured each year? How many are being destroyed each year in Ukraine? Also, how many missiles vs how many are customers wanting? How many missiles are we ordering and how would we get resupplied, presuming they are even available? available available
A choice better than many but also worse than the most obvious and simplest. The defence budget should go to the airforce with a focus on AWAC's and multi-purpose fighters that can carry both Anti-ship cruise missiles like LRASM and guided bombs like the JDAM. Air supremacy determines naval supremacy. Air supremacy with good MALE class drone reconaissance will do quick work with any amphibous landing attempt. Most of these land based cash cow projects like Land400, HIMARS, what have you will just sit uselessy somewhere in the south where they won't be doing anything.
Funny how the Aus politicians and thinktanks put money into projects that make defence weaker and more dependent on others for security instead of something cheap, effective and actually securing.
We will only have one of the missiles actually working 😂
Is this to defend what, and from whom? No one is coming to attack us
Note where the Australian government is planning on the ADF deploying to.
@@Strategy_Analysis Fair point, but what will be numbers on the ground and what is the strategic advantage here? We are a pimple on the backside of Asia and effectively the whore to America's so called "Pacific Alliance". Our budget won't allow for live fire training on mass of these missiles so it'll be a case of look, but don't touch. The only winner here is the American arms trade. We are clowns.
Labor do a lot of talk, how many have been bought in the 2 years they have been in government? I bet zero so far!
God I hate the way USAliens name their gear.
Nmesis? I almost didn't even watch this.... Please, do us Aussies a favour and use spell checking ;)
That is the spelling for the USMC anti-ship capability, that I discuss in the briefing. Not the English word. Maybe watch the video?
Why do we still talk about defence. We have already been invaded long ago. There are US military bases on Australia, and they have overrun our government. Why do people not talk about the elephant in the room, rather the mouse outside?
Brilliant content !
Thanks, glad you liked it.