What part did Future Land Warfare play in the demise of 1st Armoured Regiment? 

In October 2022, the outgoing Director General of Future Land Warfare was Brig Ian Langford, DSC (and bars).  He’d brought an amazing intellect to the position, and had accomplished much during his four-year tenure.  As part of his function, he set up RICO … the Robotics and Autonomous Systems Implementation and Co-ordination Office. 

[Although tipped to be a future Chief of Army, Langford was reported to have felt that he had lost the confidence of the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell.  In his view, therefore, it was appropriate that he resign.] 

Brigadier James Davis became the new DG Future Land Warfare.  As a former RAAC officer, Brig Davis had been Commanding Officer, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, from 2014 to 2016.  

The Government’s response to the Defence Strategic Review was released in Sep 23; with it came the surprise announcement that 1 Armd Regt would be stripped of its tanks in order to become Army’s Combat Experimentation Group (CXG).  

This provided the missing link.  RICO had the staffing to manage and prioritise new technologies, but urgently needed a ‘hands on’ unit to evaluate them and decide what worked and had potential, and what didn’t.  

A biographical note for Brig Davis in his new capacity refers to him as leading “Army design, innovation, land concepts, history, research and experimentation”.  In a published interview, he states that he established an experimental unit of 130 people, i.e. CXG.  It’s RICO which directs and oversees the work undertaken by the CXG. 

The BIG question is, of course … how was it that 1 Armd Regt was selected to become the CXG; resulting in 2 Cav Regt becoming the first RAAC unit to comprise four squadrons (two tank and two cavalry), with the CO boasting that “From the start of 2025 … the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will be the heaviest and most combat capable manoeuvre regiment in the Australian Army”. 

Could RAAC ‘tribalism’ have been involved?  Surely not.

The RICO team have been asked the following vide their website https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/rico : 

“How can turning a tank regiment with decades of accrued skill and expertise in destroying the enemy (not to mention its tradition and heritage) into a Combat Experimentation Group be justified at a time when the nation’s strategic circumstances are described as ‘perilous’; especially when the decision forces Australia’s only armoured brigade to go without a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters? How was such a decision allowed to come about?”  

Chances are that there will be no response from the RICO team, in accord with the pattern adopted by Army of not entering into discussion of any sort (not matter how important the subject).  Wouldn’t it be great to see them prove me wrong! 

[It’s unlikely that this would have happened on Langford’s watch, given that he regularly “challenged the defence community on Australia’s lack of military preparedness”.]

What’s happened to the RAAC?  The RAAC used to be a Corps with close ties and a common resolve.  The last act of solidarity, however, was the opposition expressed by the Corps in 2023 to stripping the tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment: the serving Representative Honorary Colonel, the Immediate Past Rep Hon Col, the 1 Armd Regt Hon Col, the then RAAC Head of Corps, the RAAC Corps Conference, and the 1 Armd Regt Association, all recommended against it.  Sadly, we seem to be united no longer.

[Brig Davis was appointed a member of the Order of Australia in June 2024.]

Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)

.

.

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army soldier from the 1st Armoured Regiment controls an M134D minigun remote weapon station attached to a modular robotic vehicle during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025 at Townsville Field Training Area, Queensland. Photo by Lance Corporal Caitlyn Davill.

.

.


.


.