Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[MARKMILES77]

Would a Boxer or AMV35 really be up to the task from a mobility and protection standpoint though? I was under the impression that the phase 3 vehicle needed to have the mobility to keep up with the Abrams with "comparable" protection levels.

I would have thought a decked out Lynx or CV90 would boast higher all around protection levels than what was possible on either of their wheeled counterparts?

It is amazing (in a good way) how our expectations have gone up.
The current M113, even in AS4 version, has protection from 14.5mm AP(Stanag 4) at best and is armed with a 50 Cal gun with a pretty basic aiming system.
Pre Land 400, if the Government had offered to replace them with say a Boxer IFV, most people would have applauded the MASSIVE increase in capability.
Protection exceeding STANAG 6 (30 mm AP), armed with a 30 mm cannon with airburst capability along with hunter/killer capability, killer/killer capability, an integrated ATGM and the option of active protection.
But now with how far expectations have come , a vehicle at that level of capability, is thought of as "not good enough" as an M113 replacement!

For most likely ADF deployments I would have thought Boxer perfectly adequate and even preferable to a tracked vehicle.

 

[Boagrius]

It is amazing (in a good way) how our expectations have gone up.
The current M113, even in AS4 version, has protection from 14.5mm AP(Stanag 4) at best and is armed with a 50 Cal gun with a pretty basic aiming system.
Pre Land 400, if the Government had offered to replace them with say a Boxer IFV, most people would have applauded the MASSIVE increase in capability.
Protection exceeding STANAG 6 (30 mm AP), armed with a 30 mm cannon with airburst capability along with hunter/killer capability, killer/killer capability, an integrated ATGM and the option of active protection.
But now with how far expectations have come , a vehicle at that level of capability, is thought of as "not good enough" as an M113 replacement!

For most likely ADF deployments I would have thought Boxer perfectly adequate and even preferable to a tracked vehicle.

Fair enough. I suppose it's a question of what contingencies we're actually planning for. It strikes me that current procurement decisions are directed towards equipping the ADF for higher intensity, conventional conflicts. I imagine recent Chinese muscle flexing in the region has only served to contribute to this.

I agree (and hope!) that whatever we field out of LAND400 is unlikely to be deployed for much more than the COIN/peacekeeping situations the ASLAV's and M113s have had to deal with in the past. That said, if we are looking to field a high end, networked force capable of competing with "the best of them" as part of a regional task force/deterrent then something more capable (CV90/Lynx) might make sense? I know Boxer is likely to be extremely capable in its own right, but why settle for anything less than the best?

EDIT: I'd add that I agree re: the change in attitude to this over the years. Then again, the landscape has changed under our feet a bit. The vulnerabilities of modern western armour have been displayed on numerous occasions (Iraq, Afrghanistan, hell even the IDF in '06) and the PRC is now disrupting the regional strategic balance in a fairly unprecedented way. I can see why the expectations have shifted!

 

[Waylander]

True but the M113, eben in it's questionable AS4 iteration, has been obsolete for frontline service for decades and the Australian Army skipped several generations of much more capable tracked and wheeled vehicles (with the exception of the ASLAV in a different role) since it's introduction.

 

[Milne Bay]

True but the M113, eben in it's questionable AS4 iteration, has been obsolete for frontline service for decades and the Australian Army skipped several generations of much more capable tracked and wheeled vehicles (with the exception of the ASLAV in a different role) since it's introduction.

The M113 AS4 was obsolete even before it was introduced. It was like re-introducing Matilda tanks. I couldn't believe it when it happened, and am glad to see them go for the sakes of the men who were forced to operate in them. Bloody waste and utter disgrace - they would never serve anywhere and cost an arm and a leg to develop.
Good riddance
MB

 

[Raven22]

The AS4s will actually likely continue to serve on alongside the Land400 IFV, in both ALV and mortar carrier roles, at least initially. Saves having to develop versions of the IFV. I wonder how long the hulls will serve for before they are finally put out to pasture?

 

[Nick underscore]

The AS4s will actually likely continue to serve on alongside the Land400 IFV, in both ALV and mortar carrier roles, at least initially... I wonder how long the hulls will serve for before they are finally put out to pasture?

You're probably in the best position to answer that (possible rhetorical) question Raven..

Maybe already answered, but the remainder of the AS4's cannot be deemed as capable 'Tracked' PMV's and moved to reserves as coy 'lift'? Admittedly the AS4's don't have the V-shape hull..

 

[Raven22]

You probably could do that, although I'd argue it wouldn't be a very good use of resources. The PMV has the advantage of being easy to maintain, easy to train on, and easy to deploy. The PMV is also well suited to the tasks expected of the reserve (particularly RASO tasks in support of regular formations and stabilisation tasks instead of regular formations).

The AS4 on the other hand isn't well suited at all. It is harder to maintain, train and deploy and isn't well suited to the tasks expected of the reserves. Having reservists qualified to man the few remaining AS4s in ARA units might be useful, but reservists having them as a capability in their own right wouldn't make much sense.

If I was a senior leader in the reserve RAAC, I would be embracing both the Bushmaster and Hawkei. With the future ARA having no combat vehicles lighter and easier to deploy than the Land400 contenders, I think a reserve RAAC equipped with Bushmaster and Hawkei will provide a very handy capability that will be in high demand in most likely contingencies. Just think how versatile a squadron of Hawkei with a mix of swing mount 0.50 cal and RWS mounted Javelin/Spike would be.

 

[Waylander]

This makes alot of sense.

I expect the reserve to only flesh out frontline units in high intensity operations anyway, with more homogenous reserve formations deploying for peacekeeping missions only.

 

[ngatimozart]

A bit of history. Whilst it is mostly about USAAF operations in New Guinea it covers the Australian 7th and 9th Division operation to take Lae and Salamaua during the New Guinea campaign.

New Guinea Campaign: Air Operations Lae-Salamaua - Restored 1943

 

[STURM]

Unfortunately, the campaign in New Guinea doesn't get as much attention as it should. Most of the focus is on Tarawa, Guadacanal, Iwo Jima, etc, but its often forgotten that a protracted and very bloody campaign was also fought in New Guinea and that one of the first defeats the Japanese experienced was at Milne bay. A plus point for the Allies was that when things started getting bad for the Japanese at Guadacanal; troops allocated for the capture of Port Moresby were diverted to Guadacanal.

 

[cdxbow]

A bit of history. Whilst it is mostly about USAAF operations in New Guinea it covers the Australian 7th and 9th Division operation to take Lae and Salamaua during the New Guinea campaign.

New Guinea Campaign: Air Operations Lae-Salamaua - Restored 1943

Thanks for that. That's a terrific doco. I kept a look out to see if my I could see my late 'Uncle Jack' who served in the 9th. Like many of the old diggers he never spoke about the war and much history has been lost as the numbers of WWII diggers dwindle.

 

[Nick underscore]

A bit of history. Whilst it is mostly about USAAF operations in New Guinea it covers the Australian 7th and 9th Division operation to take Lae and Salamaua during the New Guinea campaign.

New Guinea Campaign: Air Operations Lae-Salamaua - Restored 1943

Agree with others, cheers ngati.

Actually watched a few of the doco's through the same channel.

Absolute legends.

 

[ASSAIL]

I've been watching some od the footage of 2RAR at RIMPAC and note that they have a very different helmet to the marines and other troops. It looks like there's less protection but more audio awareness.
What are the advantages/disadvantages between the two and why the choice?

In my time in the service the US and Oz helmets were the same.

 

[Raven22]

The new helmets actually provide better protection than the old ones. As you said, the main advantage of the new helmets is ergonomics - they're lighter, better fitting, and much easier to integrate NVGs and torches and headsets and IR lights etc. In the future different helmets will be issued to different troops as well. Tier 2 dismounted troops (ie, infantry and other soldiers who fight on foot) will get lighter ones than the general issue one.

Just to show how fast things are changing, the type of helmet I wore in Iraq in 2008 is now banned from use, even in training, as it no longer provides an acceptable level of protection. That deployment was the first time I'd even used a Kevlar helmet I'm pretty sure - everything before that had been the old tinpot M1 helmet.

I'm happy to say the new personal kit being issued now is as good as anything in the world.

 

[t68]

Bell Helicopter pitches Vipers and Venoms to the ADF | Australian Aviation

Bell Helicopters might put up the UH-1Y Venom as a contender for the future LUH, interesting choice thought the it was something of little bird size, could it make sence for that combination operationally off the LHD and leave MRH-90 for land operations.

If the correct information I have gathered UH-1Y can only carry 8 fully equipped soldiers compared to the MRH 90 11, seems ideal as a LUH it compromises the company lift capabilty.

 

[vonnoobie]

Bell Helicopter pitches Vipers and Venoms to the ADF | Australian Aviation

Bell Helicopters might put up the UH-1Y Venom as a contender for the future LUH, interesting choice thought the it was something of little bird size, could it make sence for that combination operationally off the LHD and leave MRH-90 for land operations.

If the correct information I have gathered UH-1Y can only carry 8 fully equipped soldiers compared to the MRH 90 11, seems ideal as a LUH it compromises the company lift capabilty.

I had assumed something along the size of a Little bird too, and that may still be the case. The DWP does state specifically a 'light' helicopter, The UH-1Y is not exactly a light helicopter.

That being said it could also be a stab in the dark for some extra business, We have the attack helicopter you want, but with the same engine we can also supply a utility/scout helicopter that you may be able to use as your 'light' helo if your flexible.

Could be a great opertunity to standardise the naval helo fleet by acquiring either the MH-60S (shared componants with the MH-60R we have), Venom or the Yankee as the are all marinised, In use with the force we most likely to be working closest with for the foreseable future and they all share the same engines.

Oppertunity to reduce support requirements on the Canberra's from sustaining 3 - 4 engine types to 2.

Even if the Yankee/Venom isn't selected for the light helo requirement may be an option to replace the MRH-90's in the navy.

 

[Goknub]

I actually think the Venom would be the better option for the ADF as a whole. The AH-6 is great for its niche but there is also a need for a AME capability and a general LUH. The Venom would be a better all-round match.

Where I would like to see the AH-6 would be in support of the counter-terrorism SWAT teams. They are the first responders to a terrorist event and so should have the capability to react as fast as possible. Waiting for SOCOMD to be activated before an asset like the AH-6 can be used just delays things. The would AFP could coordinate small avo detachments in each state capital, and the ADF could still train with them too.

Btw, I believe the Company lift requirement was a mistake. The max lift should have been an enlarged Platoon, Company and above should have been given to the Chinooks.

 

[vonnoobie]

Something we have over looked, In the DWP it states the helicopter is to be a light helicopter and that key to this it is to be capable of rapid transport by aircraft (C-130, C-17).

Assuming we were only to use the C-17 for such transport then any aircraft would have to be able to fit inside the hold complete because any requirement of disassembly/assembly does not fit in with the concept of rapid deployment.

The cargo bay door's only open to a maximum height of 4.5 meters which is the same height of the cargo bay aft of the center wing box, with the wing box allowing a maximum height of 3.96 meters.

With the Venom/Yankee already having a height of 4.5 meters that becomes a paint swapping fit and an unlikely scenario to allow for rapid movement.

Another factor is that the entire length of the cargo hold is about 26 meters, excluding the forward section from the center wing box and you can transport a single Venom on a C-17 at any one time assuming you can cram it in there in the first place.

Quite simply unless we want to drop the requirement for rapid transportation of any 'light' helicopter then the Venom will not be it.

The offer from Bell doesn't really mean anything, They are a company and as such understandably responsible to push there products. They can make a combined Viper/Venom contract look mighty appertising but they don't dictate what we buy. IF the Venom is acquired then it would be as an asset to use off of the LHD's allowing all Taipans to be transferred land side.

Regards, vonnoobie.

 

[Goknub]

It depends on what is meant by rapid. Being able to go into action almost immediately on arrival is one reading but given the context could well mean within several hours of a deployment. C17 tab data gives it an ability to lift 4-6 UH-1s, given the Venom is slightly longer then the lower count of 4 could be assumed, which meets the requirement.

As a SOCOMD/AME asset the Venom would be quite useful and operate in less of a niche roll than the AH-6 would. I would see it operating alongside the Taipans, not replacing them.

As for the Viper, I see it having less of a chance than the Venom.

 

[Raven22]

The latest I've heard is that the powers that be are moving away from the idea of little birds, and towards something nice and simple like a new Blackhawk. The problem with little birds of course is their versatility - they are very good at a small range of tasks, but pretty rubbish for everything else. If they were purchased, you would still need a larger transport helicopter for 6 Avn for lift tasks, and SOCOMD really don't want MRH90. Buying new Blackhawks solves that problem, and you can still have armed variants to provide fire support. Of course Blackhawks can't really be called 'light', but there isn't much there that is truly light that would fit the bill (ie, not developmental, in service, guarenteed development path and assorted black boxes included).

Doing this would have the added benefit of freeing up a squadron worth of MRH90 that could be given to 5 Avn. Some of the extra airframes could be turned into dedicated AME birds to fill that capability need as well. You might as well buy half a dozen MH-60S for the navy as well to replace their MRH90s. That way navy would have a uniform fleet of Seahawk variants, and free up even more MRH90 for 5 Avn.